In the 24 hour news world that we live in, complicated issues too often get boiled down to buzz words. The reason is simple, reporters don’t want to take the time to do the research, and viewers don’t want to have to watch for an hour to understand what’s going on.
However, some issues need to be complicated, and this is one of them. To understand the current situation Texas A&M finds themselves in is to understand not only Texas A&M, but the University of Texas, ESPN, and perhaps even college football itself. And to truly gauge the issues require not only taking a look at the A&M and Texas rivalry, but at the very future of the game.
That understanding is where this story starts.
“If you think about it, a separate school network does not work unless it's public television, and they need all kinds of institutional and federal government funding. Last time I checked, the college athletic departments are not eligible,” Byrne wote.
He also included a sentence that now seems laughable, saying “(Texas) could have had their own network for the last 14 years of the Big 12 and so could we or any member of the conference. Our friends have been bringing their Longhorn Sports Network television mic flags around for years. Their stand alone network has still not happened yet.”
And to top it off, a line that now seems like foreshadowing.
“Even ESPN does not have enough live programming to fill its' schedule each day,” Byrne wrote.
But a separate school network is exactly what they got, as ESPN and the University of Texas agreed to a 20-year, 300-million dollar deal with ESPN handling the operations and distribution of the network.
That last part is the key. An issue with the Longhorn Network isn’t an issue with just Texas, but with ESPN itself. And there are issues aplenty.
The A&M decision makers not only underestimated the value of the potential Longhorn Network, but even after the deal was announced they didn’t really understand its ramifications. ESPN was now committed, in a big way, to making sure that the Longhorn Network succeeded.
That realization finally came in recent weeks when ESPN announced they would be broadcasting a second Big 12 game on the Longhorn Network. In order to do this, they’re not only forgoing showing the Longhorns on their own family of networks, but also had to be granted a waiver by Fox Sports Net, the other second tier rights holder to the Big 12.
All of that means that a game that would previously have been broadcast by either ESPN or Fox will now be carried exclusively by the Longhorn Network. Aside from the indignation that their opponent will feel about having their game broadcast on the network, the bigger concern at A&M is the level of dedication that this shows in getting the Longhorn Network off the ground.
This is a perfect example of why this issue can’t be boiled down into 140 characters tweets of “surely that is against NCAA rules!” Because it isn’t.
Remember that ESPN, and not Texas, operates the Longhorn Network. And Texas Athletic Director Deloss Dodds has already gone on record saying that Texas will not be making any decisions regarding which high school games would potentially be aired.
By doing that, he clears Texas of violating the relevant NCAA bylaw 13.10.2 (line c) which says that a prospective student athlete may not appear in any form on “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.”
As long as ESPN makes the decisions, then there is no current NCAA rule against broadcasting high school games. And since ESPN also covers recruiting, they don’t need the Texas staff to tell them which games to broadcast. It makes perfect sense that the first school rumored to be in talks about broadcasting a game is Brenham, home of 2012 Texas commits Tim Cole and Malcom Brown.
The question is, can Aggies do anything about it?
Why should Texas back down from acting in their own best interest? If there’s no NCAA rules against broadcasting high school games, then they should do it. Games featuring future Longhorns and the Lone Star State’s elite players would likely earn big ratings on the new network.
If Fox is allowing it, then why wouldn’t ESPN show every game they can on the Longhorn Network also? Anything else wouldn’t make sense from a business perspective.
But for the same reasons that Aggies can’t be shocked that those things are happening, Longhorns can’t be surprised that the Aggies are resolved to do something about it.
That’s why this issue has arisen again. Not because Aggie fans are upset that this fall’s Brenham game might be on the Longhorn Network, but because of the down-the-road implications of ESPN backing Texas on such a grand scale.
Realignment decisions aren’t made based on short-term financial windfalls or emotional distress. They’re made for the future, and that’s what Texas A&M’s decision makers must consider.
The Big 12 conference is shrinking in the face of a time where expansion seems almost certain to be the future. As political pressure mounts every year for a college football playoff, super conferences feeding into that playoff seem almost guaranteed to be part of college football’s not-too-distant future.
The conference also expects members to see a boost in revenue despite losing one of its largest markets, Denver and one of its most marketable teams, Nebraska, a summer ago. And while the current members may see a short term revenue gain, the long term deals will likely pale in comparison to the new Pac 12 and Big 10, who are both adding championship games while the Big 12 is losing its own.
A&M is already at a sizable financial disadvantage to Texas, and that only figures to grow as ESPN dedicates itself to the Longhorn network and the Texas brand.
First, you have to understand the A&M mentality here. Playing second fiddle to Texas has been fine for practically 100 years of Texas A&M’s existence. But it was the schools themselves, with their decisions, their culture and their locations that caused it. Texas, for the vast majority of its athletic history, has just been better than Texas A&M.
Now, however, it’s possibly an unbalanced system that challenges to keep the Aggies there. ESPN has chosen to push the Longhorns to new financial heights, and that’s something the Aggies cannot compete with in the current set up.
If the Aggies are going to compete with Texas on a consistent, long term basis, A&M needs to drastically shift how things operate in the state of Texas. The SEC represents that possibility.
Let’s start with the question that most people want to know, why does the SEC want Texas A&M?
That one is easy to explain. ESPN, like every other type of media, makes their money not only off of subscribers, but off of advertising. And despite i's athletic prowess, the SEC doesn't have many large media markets.
Texas would not only be the biggest state in SEC territory, but Houston, San Antonio and Dallas all compare favorably with the SEC’s current largest market in Atlanta. Jacksonville is second in the SEC yet well behind Austin, Fort Worth and El Paso. Nashville is third in the SEC yet behind all of those Texas cities. In fact, fewer than ten cities in SEC states have populations that are greater than Texas A&M’s estimated 280,000 living former students alone.
SEC viewership in the Lone Star State would go up significantly if the meaning of an Arkansas and LSU game hit closer to home.
Now to the other side, why would the Aggies want the SEC? The path to championships on the gridiron is certainly easier in the Big 12. The Aggies have shown in recent years that they aren’t yet ready to compete with the SEC. Further, it’s been 16 years since the Aggie last defeated an SEC opponent.
That view has its merits, but it’s short sighted. The view from those inside A&M that want to go to the SEC is forward thinking. This isn’t the Aggies of the early 2000s trying to compete in the SEC. It would be the Aggies of the future, armed with top-notch facilities across the board and a fan base that would be eager to prove they belong in their new conference.
No, if the Aggies are to take that road, it will be much longer than that. But they must first decide if they want to go down that path.
There’s something to be said for the Aggies staying put. Playing second fiddle to Texas has its benefits. Texas can’t be good every year, and the Aggies have never been better positioned to take up the reigns in those off years.
The Big 12 is also safer. Kansas, Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State and Missouri pose no real long term threats to the upper half of the conference. Texas A&M is also in a favorable situation financially in the coming years compared to Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.
But there’s simply no way that A&M, or Oklahoma for that matter, can compete with Texas in the long term because of the inequity of the ESPN deal. To do that, Aggies are going to have to change the playing field.
Moving to the SEC would give the Aggie brand a new twist. SEC football isn’t only attractive to recruits, but to fans also. The Aggies would be the only school waving the flag of the Lone Star State in the nation’s premier conference. The effects of that move beyond just TV set numbers, but to ticket numbers and merchandising. If the Aggies want to truly compete on Texas’ financial level, that’s what they have to be thinking.
If the Aggies do decide to move, it will be controversial. The Longhorns will paint them as the bad guys that ripped apart some of the traditional rivalries in the state. And the move will not only be played out in the athletic realm, but will reach into the worlds of academics and politics as well. They have to decide that the move is worth the fallout.
That’s the quandary facing Aggie decision makers. It is not a simple move determined because of an emotional reaction to Brenham games being shown on Thusday night cable.
The Aggies can break away to the SEC and start trying to level the playing field with Texas, but the road would not be an easy one, and there’s no guarantee that the Aggies will succeed in their new conference.
But what if they do?
The Aggies were surprised by ESPN's investment in the Longhorn Network.
That understanding is where this story starts.
The Longhorn Network and the Big 12
Call it ignorance, or call it naiveté, but the decision makers at Texas A&M vastly underestimated the potential of a dedicated University of Texas channel a year ago. In fact, A&M Athletic Bill Byrne wrote about the potential of a Longhorn network last June in his “Wednesday Weekly,”“If you think about it, a separate school network does not work unless it's public television, and they need all kinds of institutional and federal government funding. Last time I checked, the college athletic departments are not eligible,” Byrne wote.
He also included a sentence that now seems laughable, saying “(Texas) could have had their own network for the last 14 years of the Big 12 and so could we or any member of the conference. Our friends have been bringing their Longhorn Sports Network television mic flags around for years. Their stand alone network has still not happened yet.”
And to top it off, a line that now seems like foreshadowing.
“Even ESPN does not have enough live programming to fill its' schedule each day,” Byrne wrote.
Texas AD Deloss Dodds has already been in talks about broadcasting high school games.
That last part is the key. An issue with the Longhorn Network isn’t an issue with just Texas, but with ESPN itself. And there are issues aplenty.
The A&M decision makers not only underestimated the value of the potential Longhorn Network, but even after the deal was announced they didn’t really understand its ramifications. ESPN was now committed, in a big way, to making sure that the Longhorn Network succeeded.
That realization finally came in recent weeks when ESPN announced they would be broadcasting a second Big 12 game on the Longhorn Network. In order to do this, they’re not only forgoing showing the Longhorns on their own family of networks, but also had to be granted a waiver by Fox Sports Net, the other second tier rights holder to the Big 12.
All of that means that a game that would previously have been broadcast by either ESPN or Fox will now be carried exclusively by the Longhorn Network. Aside from the indignation that their opponent will feel about having their game broadcast on the network, the bigger concern at A&M is the level of dedication that this shows in getting the Longhorn Network off the ground.
Live from your local high school...
If they weren’t looking to ruffle feathers, then this is the issue that they probably should have kept quiet for as long as possible. The Longhorn Network is already in discussions with the NCAA and the governing body of Texas high school athletics, the University Interscholastic League (which was founded by the University of Texas) to work out the possibility of televising Texas high school football games.This is a perfect example of why this issue can’t be boiled down into 140 characters tweets of “surely that is against NCAA rules!” Because it isn’t.
Brenham, home of Texas commit Malcom Brown is already being rumored to appear on the network.
By doing that, he clears Texas of violating the relevant NCAA bylaw 13.10.2 (line c) which says that a prospective student athlete may not appear in any form on “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.”
As long as ESPN makes the decisions, then there is no current NCAA rule against broadcasting high school games. And since ESPN also covers recruiting, they don’t need the Texas staff to tell them which games to broadcast. It makes perfect sense that the first school rumored to be in talks about broadcasting a game is Brenham, home of 2012 Texas commits Tim Cole and Malcom Brown.
Unrest in Aggieland
Texas fans will say that Aggies are jealous, and that’s exactly right. They’re jealous of the success that Texas has enjoyed over the last decade, and they’re jealous of the power that they’re now wielding with the backing of ESPN.The question is, can Aggies do anything about it?
Why should Texas back down from acting in their own best interest? If there’s no NCAA rules against broadcasting high school games, then they should do it. Games featuring future Longhorns and the Lone Star State’s elite players would likely earn big ratings on the new network.
If Fox is allowing it, then why wouldn’t ESPN show every game they can on the Longhorn Network also? Anything else wouldn’t make sense from a business perspective.
It's the future, not the present, that has Aggies worried about the Big 12.
That’s why this issue has arisen again. Not because Aggie fans are upset that this fall’s Brenham game might be on the Longhorn Network, but because of the down-the-road implications of ESPN backing Texas on such a grand scale.
Realignment decisions aren’t made based on short-term financial windfalls or emotional distress. They’re made for the future, and that’s what Texas A&M’s decision makers must consider.
The Big 12 conference is shrinking in the face of a time where expansion seems almost certain to be the future. As political pressure mounts every year for a college football playoff, super conferences feeding into that playoff seem almost guaranteed to be part of college football’s not-too-distant future.
The conference also expects members to see a boost in revenue despite losing one of its largest markets, Denver and one of its most marketable teams, Nebraska, a summer ago. And while the current members may see a short term revenue gain, the long term deals will likely pale in comparison to the new Pac 12 and Big 10, who are both adding championship games while the Big 12 is losing its own.
A&M is already at a sizable financial disadvantage to Texas, and that only figures to grow as ESPN dedicates itself to the Longhorn network and the Texas brand.
Why the SEC?
Now it’s time to discuss the rumors at hand, A&M’s flirtations with the Southeastern Conference. But again, this issue isn’t a simple one.Auburn, as well as the four previous BCS Champions have all come from the SEC.
Now, however, it’s possibly an unbalanced system that challenges to keep the Aggies there. ESPN has chosen to push the Longhorns to new financial heights, and that’s something the Aggies cannot compete with in the current set up.
If the Aggies are going to compete with Texas on a consistent, long term basis, A&M needs to drastically shift how things operate in the state of Texas. The SEC represents that possibility.
Let’s start with the question that most people want to know, why does the SEC want Texas A&M?
That one is easy to explain. ESPN, like every other type of media, makes their money not only off of subscribers, but off of advertising. And despite i's athletic prowess, the SEC doesn't have many large media markets.
Texas would not only be the biggest state in SEC territory, but Houston, San Antonio and Dallas all compare favorably with the SEC’s current largest market in Atlanta. Jacksonville is second in the SEC yet well behind Austin, Fort Worth and El Paso. Nashville is third in the SEC yet behind all of those Texas cities. In fact, fewer than ten cities in SEC states have populations that are greater than Texas A&M’s estimated 280,000 living former students alone.
SEC viewership in the Lone Star State would go up significantly if the meaning of an Arkansas and LSU game hit closer to home.
Now to the other side, why would the Aggies want the SEC? The path to championships on the gridiron is certainly easier in the Big 12. The Aggies have shown in recent years that they aren’t yet ready to compete with the SEC. Further, it’s been 16 years since the Aggie last defeated an SEC opponent.
The Choices
The internet was abuzz earlier this week as people read the Board of Regents would be having a section of their executive session to talk about the Big 12 Conference. However, further reading of the agenda shows that the meeting is about the legal issues of the conference, and not an SEC strategy session as many Aggies had hoped.No, if the Aggies are to take that road, it will be much longer than that. But they must first decide if they want to go down that path.
There’s something to be said for the Aggies staying put. Playing second fiddle to Texas has its benefits. Texas can’t be good every year, and the Aggies have never been better positioned to take up the reigns in those off years.
The Big 12 is also safer. Kansas, Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State and Missouri pose no real long term threats to the upper half of the conference. Texas A&M is also in a favorable situation financially in the coming years compared to Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.
But there’s simply no way that A&M, or Oklahoma for that matter, can compete with Texas in the long term because of the inequity of the ESPN deal. To do that, Aggies are going to have to change the playing field.
Moving to the SEC would give the Aggie brand a new twist. SEC football isn’t only attractive to recruits, but to fans also. The Aggies would be the only school waving the flag of the Lone Star State in the nation’s premier conference. The effects of that move beyond just TV set numbers, but to ticket numbers and merchandising. If the Aggies want to truly compete on Texas’ financial level, that’s what they have to be thinking.
If the Aggies do decide to move, it will be controversial. The Longhorns will paint them as the bad guys that ripped apart some of the traditional rivalries in the state. And the move will not only be played out in the athletic realm, but will reach into the worlds of academics and politics as well. They have to decide that the move is worth the fallout.
That’s the quandary facing Aggie decision makers. It is not a simple move determined because of an emotional reaction to Brenham games being shown on Thusday night cable.
The Aggies can break away to the SEC and start trying to level the playing field with Texas, but the road would not be an easy one, and there’s no guarantee that the Aggies will succeed in their new conference.
But what if they do?
No comments:
Post a Comment