mattsarz Wrote:Here's a partial list of SEC games that went untelevised. Then look at my SEC page at http://mattsarz44017.tripod.com/2007/SEC.html for a list of PPV games.

Non-Conference
N. Texas at Arkansas
E. Michigan at Vanderbilt
Chattanooga at Arkansas
Louisiana Tech at Mississippi
UAB at Mississippi St
Florida International at Arkansas
Miami (OH) at Vanderbilt
Tennessee Tech at Auburn
Troy at Georgia
Northwestern St. at Mississippi
UL-Lafayette at Tennessee
Louisiana-Monroe at Alabama
Wake Forest at Vanderbilt

Conference
Mississippi St. at Arkansas
Arkansas at Mississippi
Mississippi at Georgia

Yeah I'd pay extra to see those contests.....if I was an Ole Miss fan.
Most of those are throw away games. Let the Bubbas in SEC land have them. I would rather watch paint dry then tune into some of these contests.
CJ

CatsClaw Wrote:

Gray Avenger Wrote:If the Big East TV markets are as great as some of you say, why hasn't the Big East set up it's own TV network yet? Is having only 8 all-sports schools part of the problem?

Because Tranghese refuses to think out of the box. Tranghese said that he looked into a Big East network but decided against it. Then he said that he thought that ESPN would essentially be the Big East network . That might be true, but we need a commissioner who is willing to think big when it comes to football.

I think that have only 8 all-sports schools is an issue, but I think the bigger item is that the Big East for football is really more of a Rust Belt/Near South conference as opposed to a true East Coast conference. That would be even more of the case if the Big East were to expand/split for football with one or more of the usual suspects (i.e. Memphis, USF, etc.). The great markets (on paper) are from the urban basketball schools as opposed to the football schools (outside of Rutgers, whose ability to really deliver its home market is tenuous at best). The question is how much true leverage a Big East network would have in getting carriage on cable systems in states outside of West Virginia and maybe Connecticut, especially considering that the Big Ten (which has comparatively huge flagships schools and fanbases within the conference footprint) had a lot of contention on that issue. I think the Big East would eventually need to try a TV network because it appears that this is going to be the standard operating procedure for the other BCS conference sooner rather than later, but how successful it would be is a different matter.

chess Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:With the onset of the digital age, free TV is going to be a thing of the past. Cable and satellite networks are the way of the future. It's not just college football.

Wow, I just had a conversation with a business consultant where the conclusion was the opposite. I currently see cable and satellite like 'Blockbuster' or 'Hollywood Video'(i.e. a thing of the past).

Why? I can go to sites like Hulu.com, itunes (for ordering shows and movies), the internet, etc... may make cable television and satellite television a thing of the past. Seriously, why pay $70-$100 a month for a service you may be able to buy as you want, watch when you want, etc...

That's the other part of the equation. When you own/control your content as opposed to selling off your rights, you are able to take advantage of opportunities on the Internet in the future. Of course, I'm very skeptical about the supposed downfall of television (or at least at any point in the next couple of decades). Radio was supposed to die off back in the 1940s with ascent of television yet it's still around doing fine. TV networks certainly need to adapt because we now have hundreds of channel options as opposed to just a handful, but that doesn't mean the medium will be eradicated completely.

Frank the Tank Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

Gray Avenger Wrote:If the Big East TV markets are as great as some of you say, why hasn't the Big East set up it's own TV network yet? Is having only 8 all-sports schools part of the problem?

Because Tranghese refuses to think out of the box. Tranghese said that he looked into a Big East network but decided against it. Then he said that he thought that ESPN would essentially be the Big East network . That might be true, but we need a commissioner who is willing to think big when it comes to football.

I think that have only 8 all-sports schools is an issue, but I think the bigger item is that the Big East for football is really more of a Rust Belt/Near South conference as opposed to a true East Coast conference. That would be even more of the case if the Big East were to expand/split for football with one or more of the usual suspects (i.e. Memphis, USF, etc.). The great markets (on paper) are from the urban basketball schools as opposed to the football schools (outside of Rutgers, whose ability to really deliver its home market is tenuous at best). The question is how much true leverage a Big East network would have in getting carriage on cable systems in states outside of West Virginia and maybe Connecticut, especially considering that the Big Ten (which has comparatively huge flagships schools and fanbases within the conference footprint) had a lot of contention on that issue. I think the Big East would eventually need to try a TV network because it appears that this is going to be the standard operating procedure for the other BCS conference sooner rather than later, but how successful it would be is a different matter.

The Big East could be as successful as any other conference if marketed right. If the Big East is going to stay together then they would have very strong leverage thanks to basketball and the extensive markets they bring.

Frank the Tank Wrote:

chess Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:With the onset of the digital age, free TV is going to be a thing of the past. Cable and satellite networks are the way of the future. It's not just college football.

Wow, I just had a conversation with a business consultant where the conclusion was the opposite. I currently see cable and satellite like 'Blockbuster' or 'Hollywood Video'(i.e. a thing of the past).

Why? I can go to sites like Hulu.com, itunes (for ordering shows and movies), the internet, etc... may make cable television and satellite television a thing of the past. Seriously, why pay $70-$100 a month for a service you may be able to buy as you want, watch when you want, etc...

That's the other part of the equation. When you own/control your content as opposed to selling off your rights, you are able to take advantage of opportunities on the Internet in the future. Of course, I'm very skeptical about the supposed downfall of television (or at least at any point in the next couple of decades). Radio was supposed to die off back in the 1940s with ascent of television yet it's still around doing fine. TV networks certainly need to adapt because we now have hundreds of channel options as opposed to just a handful, but that doesn't mean the medium will be eradicated completely.

But don't you realize that both internet and TV are NETWORKS. You have to have access to get to the website.

Read and think...