Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Cowboy Junky

I think the CBS takeover is promising for the MWC...

Recommended Posts

Guest Cowboy Junky

We're still under contract for 8 years. If someone trys to get out of it, they'll have to pay us a whole lot money. We still have our broadcast gaurantees written into the contract. The next 8 years we're set.

By the time 8 years is up CSTV should be a major player. They'll be battling ESPN for programming options. ESPN currently broadcasts hot dog eating contests, spelling bees, and other garbage. The MWC is an attractive programming option.

Competition among networks will benefit everyone.

I don't see how this can't be good for the MWC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it is right now, ESPN can't fill all the air time they have on all their channels.............seems every time I look at ESPNU, they only have a few games on.

CBS & CSTV need to align with a few good conferences and shut ESPN out and let ESPN scramble for more X games type of crap to fill the void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

Fox tried to start a network that would rival ESPN, FoxSports.

It didnt work.

They've got the Big 12 and Pac 10 under contract. The more competitors there are on the market, the higher your value goes. I'm sorry, I should say unless you're the Wac...You guys are in the fourth year of your contract and you've already made about 255 dollars from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

They've got the Big 12 and Pac 10 under contract. The more competitors there are on the market, the higher your value goes. I'm sorry, I should say unless you're the Wac...You guys are in the fourth year of your contract and you've already made about 255 dollars from it.

:lol::lol::lol:

Easy Junky, ian has so precious little left to cling to after the beatdown the wac took this year. The tv deal and past seasons is all it has left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::lol::lol:

Easy Junky, ian has so precious little left to cling to after the beatdown the wac took this year. The tv deal and past seasons is all it has left.

Ian is partially right. FSN was intended to function as a national sports network when SportsChannel and Liberty/Prime Network merged. The problem was that they had to fulfill regional commitments. They had a national sports report (Keith Olbermann used to host it) but it was intended to be shown live and in several places it wouldn't air on time or be joined in progress. They tried placing the old regional sports reports before and after to buffer the national report, but ratings and budgets never got on track for that to work.

Yes, FSN has the Big 12 and PAC-10, but they also had an MLB contract for Thursday night games. That was a disaster, again because of regional commitments.

While FSN is a service available nationally, it has mostly given up on competing with ESPN and has had to cater to ESPN the past few years. They've had to sell off Big 12 games to both Versus and ESPN instead of keeping the games on a Fox owned network (at one time F/X air PAC-10 and C-USA games). They've sold off PAC-10 games to Versus and had ESPN muscle in on the PAC-10 contract by using ABC. PAC-10 basketball coaches constantly ++++ about being treated differently in the media because they are on FSN (FSN coincidentally sold two basketball games to ESPN this year, 1st PAC-10 basketball games on ESPN since 1996, both involved Arizona since Lute Olson was the most vocal against FSN). And it is rare when any national FSN broadcast is truly available to all FSN affiliates.

FSN is a great asset, but it is treated like a distant cousin when compared to Fox Sports. Heck, FSN has a full compliment of talent that they use for college football (Tompkins, Papadakis, Watson, Meyers, Lapham, Land & Reasons) and not one of them was ever considered to cover any of the BCS games that Fox aired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian is partially right. FSN was intended to function as a national sports network when SportsChannel and Liberty/Prime Network merged. The problem was that they had to fulfill regional commitments. They had a national sports report (Keith Olbermann used to host it) but it was intended to be shown live and in several places it wouldn't air on time or be joined in progress. They tried placing the old regional sports reports before and after to buffer the national report, but ratings and budgets never got on track for that to work.

Yes, FSN has the Big 12 and PAC-10, but they also had an MLB contract for Thursday night games. That was a disaster, again because of regional commitments.

While FSN is a service available nationally, it has mostly given up on competing with ESPN and has had to cater to ESPN the past few years. They've had to sell off Big 12 games to both Versus and ESPN instead of keeping the games on a Fox owned network (at one time F/X air PAC-10 and C-USA games). They've sold off PAC-10 games to Versus and had ESPN muscle in on the PAC-10 contract by using ABC. PAC-10 basketball coaches constantly ++++ about being treated differently in the media because they are on FSN (FSN coincidentally sold two basketball games to ESPN this year, 1st PAC-10 basketball games on ESPN since 1996, both involved Arizona since Lute Olson was the most vocal against FSN). And it is rare when any national FSN broadcast is truly available to all FSN affiliates.

FSN is a great asset, but it is treated like a distant cousin when compared to Fox Sports. Heck, FSN has a full compliment of talent that they use for college football (Tompkins, Papadakis, Watson, Meyers, Lapham, Land & Reasons) and not one of them was ever considered to cover any of the BCS games that Fox aired.

Yes but ESPN is not the big dog you think it is. It

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cowboy Junky

I don't buy that. The only BCS bowl game matchup that ABC/ESPN has the TV rights to is the Rose. All the other BCS games are on FOX. I don't care for ESPN increasing lack of objectivity in reporting, but they didn't ask for a USC-Illinois Rose Bowl. Heck, they didn't benefit from Mizzou getting left of the the BCS because they don't air the Cotton Bowl, FOX does.

ESPN doesn't have a voter on either the Harris or Coaches Poll. They have two on the AP Poll, but its not part of the BCS (Fowler, Herbstreit). CSTV, on the other hand, has a voter on the AP Poll (Tom Hart) and a pair of voters on the Harris Poll (Trev Alberts & Tim Neverett from the mtn.). If anything, CSTV has more say in the Harris Poll, and by virtue, the BCS.

As for bowls with empty seats, yes, the Fiesta did not sell well because WVU fans typically drive to games and made arrangements in advance to be in New Orleans, not Phoenix. The Gator is quickly finding out that no one really wants to be in Jacksonville on 1/1 and that the Big East isn't the problem. Any bowl that Boston College is sent to will always have good seats still available. Sending any ACC team to Boise or San Francisco is sure to have tickets returned for public sale. Many bowls aren't looking for sellouts, except the big boys,

Don't try to convince us that the Eastern Sports Power Network is good for the MWC. They refuse to show highlights of our teams, even if they're in the top 25. Every time they open their mouths a negative word about the MWC comes out. They're a propaganda wing to try to legitimize the historically weak ACC and Big East and it's working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't try to convince us that the Eastern Sports Power Network is good for the MWC. They refuse to show highlights of our teams, even if they're in the top 25. Every time they open their mouths a negative word about the MWC comes out. They're a propaganda wing to try to legitimize the historically weak ACC and Big East and it's working.

No, that not my intent, the only good thing I did here ESPN say about the MWC this year was when ESPN had their first bowl special and Ed Cunningham openly gushed about how good he thought BYU was.and no one on the set disputed the fact. I said on the other thread that this could be good for the MWC (and C-USA and the A-10) if CBS gets behind the existing deals that it has.

A simple cross promotion example for CBS & CSTV would be Memphis basketball this season. CSTV has 10 Memphis basketball games that they are televising. CBS would be smart to promote that coverage. LIkewise Dayton and Rhode Island are ranked (Xavier might be back there too with the ++++-slapping they gave Virginia the other night) have a few games on CSTV this season. If the MWC gets a team back in the rankings (BYU is lurking), promote the couple games they have on CSTV. Promote the MWC and C-USA tournament coverage on the cable channel in advane.

Here's something else to ask: Does CSTV reclaim the games that they've shifed to Versus? CSTV owns those games and has the right to sell those games to whomever they choose to, provided they didn't permamently sell off those games to.

Another comonpent to think of: CW. CBS has 50% ownership in the channel. You don't necessarily need to be on CBS to be on network TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that. The only BCS bowl game matchup that ABC/ESPN has the TV rights to is the Rose. All the other BCS games are on FOX. I don't care for ESPN increasing lack of objectivity in reporting, but they didn't ask for a USC-Illinois Rose Bowl. Heck, they didn't benefit from Mizzou getting left of the the BCS because they don't air the Cotton Bowl, FOX does.

ESPN doesn't have a voter on either the Harris or Coaches Poll. They have two on the AP Poll, but its not part of the BCS (Fowler, Herbstreit). CSTV, on the other hand, has a voter on the AP Poll (Tom Hart) and a pair of voters on the Harris Poll (Trev Alberts & Tim Neverett from the mtn.). If anything, CSTV has more say in the Harris Poll, and by virtue, the BCS.

As for bowls with empty seats, yes, the Fiesta did not sell well because WVU fans typically drive to games and made arrangements in advance to be in New Orleans, not Phoenix. The Gator is quickly finding out that no one really wants to be in Jacksonville on 1/1 and that the Big East isn't the problem. Any bowl that Boston College is sent to will always have good seats still available. Sending any ACC team to Boise or San Francisco is sure to have tickets returned for public sale. Many bowls aren't looking for sellouts, except the big boys,

They are directly responsible for the BCS because ABC/ESPN led the push for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And re: Mizzu to the Cotton Kansas to the Orange. Now that Kansas beat a very weak VT, ESPN is hyping Kansas as a team that belonged. That Kansas really was a BCS team because they beat VT, who got smashed by LSU early in the season and was only in a BCS game because they were the best of a very weak ACC. So why is ESPN saying now that Kansas was the right choice for the BCS? Could it be that ESPN was party to the selection of Kansas? I wouldn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one last comment martz. ESPN gives us the choices. How? They devised the system and nightly they hype the BCS worthy teams. Then they tells us to choose from among the choices THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN US. That does not make them neutral martz. That makes ESPN directly and indirectly responsible for the entire BCS farce.

They have opinions, you and I have opinions. It is the object of the media around that to properly choose what we think is right. You don't like ESPN? Watch FSN's Final Score to get national highlights (I do).

Who led the charge to move Florida to #2 last year? It wasn't ESPN, it was CBS openly campaigning throughout the broadcast that they should leapfrog Michigan despite both teams having only one loss. ESPN themselves was looking for Michigan.

ESPN is far from responsible for the coaches poll being around. When they co-sponsored it, yes, I'd agree with you that it was very much a conflict of interest on the network's part. The coaches poll has been around since it was the old UP poll in 1950, before becoming the UPI poll. Is the coaches poll a complete fraud? Absolutely. It should be nowhere near the BCS. I'd prefer the Harris Poll and the AP Poll to decide things myself.

Also, my mistake, I overlooked Craig James from ABC having a vote in the AP Poll also. ABC/ESPN has three voters here. MWC has four voters on the coaches poll. Coaches poll representation is usually based on teams in a conference, roughly half of a conference's coaches vote in the football poll. If you want to keep the coaches in, make it a straight four reps per conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something else to ask: Does CSTV reclaim the games that they've shifed to Versus? CSTV owns those games and has the right to sell those games to whomever they choose to, provided they didn't permamently sell off those games to.

At the time that the MWC signed with CSTV, CSTV was only in a few million homes -- 6 million, if I recall, although it was available to 15 mil or so if all purchased it. Thompson said that one of the provisions required CSTV to grow to 70 mil viewers or lay off a minimum of 8 games a year to someone else who was in 70 million homes. That's how VS got involved -- they were, barely, in 70 million homes and that is who CSTV laid off the games to.

Given that there weren't a whole lot of takers, VS was probably in a pretty decent negotiating position. While I know nothing about what the contract says, my guess would be that -- at the very least -- VS has the right to the 8 games of their choice.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mattsarz, I have a question.

Is there enough product out there for another ESPN? They've added ESPN2 and ESPNU and people are already complaining that they are showing tiddlywinks now. It just strikes me that CBS is starting way behind and won't be able to make CSTV into another ESPN without bidding a ton of money for a couple of major conferences. And if they do that, then ESPN might have to shut down ESPNU or ESPN2. In other words, if CBS is going to make CSTV another ESPN, then it seems to me that they can't rely on "new growth" to do it -- they pretty much have to take it away from ESPN. Yes or no?

And as a follow up, even if they do make CSTV into another ESPN, will it really change anything? Both netoworks will spend all their best time slots and money competing for the big six conferences -- potentially making even less availble for the non-AQ conferences. Again, Yes or no?

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be a matter of product so much as target audience. For example, in the Western US, there is 1 AQ conference and 2 non-AQ conferences. If CSTV were to focus on the college sports fan in the Western US (a market segment that is marginalized nationally IMO) they may get the market share needed without having to bust the bank or alienate the western non-AQ conference fan. I don't know if the PAC-10's or WAC's contract with ABC/ESPN allows other networks to buy rights to their games but I recall seeing FOX Sports West showing PAC 10 games. If CBS/CSTV can pick up the rights to some of the WAC and PAC 10 football, basketball and other sports of interest without spending any money on the other 5 AQ conferences, they might find the best of both worlds as far as market share and expenses for product are concerned. And with the population surging in the southwest, focusing on the western US is probably a good thing, long term anyhow.

Hey Mattsarz, I have a question.

Is there enough product out there for another ESPN? They've added ESPN2 and ESPNU and people are already complaining that they are showing tiddlywinks now. It just strikes me that CBS is starting way behind and won't be able to make CSTV into another ESPN without bidding a ton of money for a couple of major conferences. And if they do that, then ESPN might have to shut down ESPNU or ESPN2. In other words, if CBS is going to make CSTV another ESPN, then it seems to me that they can't rely on "new growth" to do it -- they pretty much have to take it away from ESPN. Yes or no?

And as a follow up, even if they do make CSTV into another ESPN, will it really change anything? Both netoworks will spend all their best time slots and money competing for the big six conferences -- potentially making even less availble for the non-AQ conferences. Again, Yes or no?

Yoda out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be a matter of product so much as target audience. For example, in the Western US, there is 1 AQ conference and 2 non-AQ conferences. If CSTV were to focus on the college sports fan in the Western US (a market segment that is marginalized nationally IMO) they may get the market share needed without having to bust the bank or alienate the western non-AQ conference fan. I don't know if the PAC-10's or WAC's contract with ABC/ESPN allows other networks to buy rights to their games but I recall seeing FOX Sports West showing PAC 10 games. If CBS/CSTV can pick up the rights to some of the WAC and PAC 10 football, basketball and other sports of interest without spending any money on the other 5 AQ conferences, they might find the best of both worlds as far as market share and expenses for product are concerned. And with the population surging in the southwest, focusing on the western US is probably a good thing, long term anyhow.

The WAC's contract with ESPN gives them exclusive national broadcast rights. The conference and schools retain local and regional rights. Regional rights are defined as rights within and immediately adjoining a state in which there is a conference school. I may be mistaken but I believe that is pretty much standard language -- at least for non-AQ conferences.

So CBS/CSTV cannot pick up the rights to some of the WAC football or basketball games unless they purchase those rights from ESPN.

Yoda out...

____________________________________________...

After deleting some of my posts and closing the offending SteveAztec thread, a couple of elites have been able to open it long enough to respond to me anyway.  And since I can’t respond on a closed thread, here is my response…

Other than the initial inquiry, this has never been about letting Steve post again; I doubt that he even wants to post here.  My complaint is about his treatment on this board and the failure of admins to control attacks on him – and worse, to sometimes participate in those attacks.

Steve was first banned on the SDSU board.  When he was banned, it was a sufficiently controversial that they started what became an 8 page thread on the topic to justify the decision (https://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/9747/steve-aztec-longer-member-board).  It is clear that Steve had support in the community and there was some criticism for the Board Administrators for having failed to “expel the dozens of people who've been taunting him.”  (And take a look at the thread that I bumped; initially it was supporters happy about Steve getting a radio show.  Then the haters arrived.)

I can’t say if Steve took it too far in response, but I will say that he denies most of various accusations and adds important missing context to others.  But I wasn’t a party to any of the events and can’t say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.  And I have to admit that if half of what has been said about him is true, depending on context, I might well have banned him too.  Or more likely I might have banned those who were taunting him.  (Steve had lost a brother-in-law to suicide and there have been a number of memes of people blowing their brains out, as well as posts blaming Steve or his sister for the suicide – and admins apparently let it go.)

I am in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of the laundry list of claims made on this board about how Steve responded to all this.  My complaint, however, is about his treatment on this board.  I may be wrong, but his banning on this board at least appears to have been less about what he did on this board and more a carryover from the SDSU banning.  The same taunting continued – more suicide memes – apparently ignored by the admins. Utenation supposedly posted the first and it is explained away because he didn’t know about the suicide.  But was the post taken down?  Was an apology issued?   Indeed, for years, admins on this board have allowed Steve to be vilified based on little more than anecdotal hearsay.  This is a privately owned board, but it is not a private board – anyone can join.  And more than that, It’s not an anonymous board; people know who Steve.  You have a duty to protect your posters from libelous statements and unproven allegations -- especially when, having been banned themselves, they have no ability to defend themselves.

Even Retrofade (who says he’s not a mod but can post to closed threads) put up a “blowing his brains out” meme several years ago.  He knew that Steve lost his brother-in-law to suicide, and he now says that “Steve is a mentally disturbed individual”, which is libelous by the way, but excuses his meme as nothing more than being in “poor taste”.  Apparently it is okay with the board's current admins to taunt a "mentally disturbed person" because the post has never been taken down.  The poster has never been admonished.  And there has been no apology, unless you consider "he deserved it" to be an apology.

In my view, you owe Steve an apology for the treatment that you have tolerated and, in some cases, engaged in.  A former Aztec board went out of business when sued (not by Steve).  It won’t be the last one.  You need to fix this.  You need to administer your board and prevent libelous and incendiary attacks -- hearsay-- on posters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the PAC-10 seemingly has no such exclusivity and the PAC-10 audience would be the larger audience to potentially garner/take away were CBS/CSTV try to step it up for more market share. As for the WAC, CSTV may just have to wait for them to get throught their "battered wife" like contract with ESPN (treated like crap but where else could they go?).

http://potencial.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/...casting-rights/

The WAC's contract with ESPN gives them exclusive national broadcast rights. The conference and schools retain local and regional rights. Regional rights are defined as rights within and immediately adjoining a state in which there is a conference school. I may be mistaken but I believe that is pretty much standard language -- at least for non-AQ conferences.

So CBS/CSTV cannot pick up the rights to some of the WAC football or basketball games unless they purchase those rights from ESPN.

Yoda out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WAC's contract with ESPN gives them exclusive national broadcast rights. The conference and schools retain local and regional rights. Regional rights are defined as rights within and immediately adjoining a state in which there is a conference school. I may be mistaken but I believe that is pretty much standard language -- at least for non-AQ conferences.

So CBS/CSTV cannot pick up the rights to some of the WAC football or basketball games unless they purchase those rights from ESPN.

Yoda out...

Here is hoping that CBS' CSTV becomes to the pacific, mountain, and west central United States what ESPN is to the east coast and east central United states.

The east coast has been hogging the show for years, and hopefully the 60 million Californians, the 40 million Texans and the fastest growing cities (90% in the western half of the US), will influence CBS to show the games that people in the Pacific, Mountain and western part of the Central Time Zone want to see. Pac10, MWC, WAC and Big 12/Big 10

...or do we think that ESPN will end up getting the 3 east coast conferences BE, ACC, SEC and CBS' CSTV will get the PAC10, BIG 10 (Rose bowl), and Big 12...leaving out the non AQ's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...