• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. trkhorn said:

   September 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

   The Big 12 could schedule smarter but that’s only part of the problem. Let’s face it, the Big 12, school for school, does not match up to the SEC or even the Big 11. The SEC has 5 bonafide top-tier programs – LSU, Bama, UGA, UF, Tenn. The Big 12 has 3 – UT, OU, Neb. Big 11 has 4 – tOSU, Mich, PSU, Wisc.

   It’s the next tier down that tells the tale – in the SEC even the mid-tier teams routinely put 80K in their stadiums – Auburn, Arky, and SC, with Ole Miss not far behind. Same w/Mich. St. & Iowa. A&M is in the ballpark w/70-80K per game but that’s it. The rest of the Big 12 is full of 40K-60K type programs.

   All this reflects regional and national interest in the programs and therefore the value placed on games by the networks. Baylor and Iowa State are a complete ratings joke even when compared to their counterparts Northwestern and Vanderbilt, I would argue. Football is big again at Mizzou, but for how long? Kansas? KSU? Over the long haul, forget it.

   This is not going to change for the better anytime soon. In order to totally avoid getting sucked into the Big 12 scheduling mess and suffering long-term repercussions, we have two choices – either leave the Big 12, or schedule at least two BCS-school games per season, preferably one blockbuster and one mid-tier team(a la Ole Miss, UCLA, etc.). We know the latter won’t happen under Deloss and Mack. So, it is what it is.

2. Redfoot said:

   September 29th, 2009 at 9:17 pm

   I have just a couple of comments.

   First, this is a very tiny sample size. It’s only a few weekends, over the course of one season. It includes an anomaly (Texas having a bye week) and an event that is evenly distributed (OU playing an away OOC,) both of which you use to support your argument. What if things were flipped, which is not unlikely, in fact things may be flipped next year. If they were, you’ve got the cornerstone schools of the league (Texas and OU) headlining etc.

   Additionally, in an earlier article, a blogger pointed out that the Big 10 has terrible scheduling. They schedule all kinds of patsies from the MAC. Wisconsin vs. Bowling Green, man that’s what I want to watch.

   I think the main problem is that the schools in the conference that generally could bring either a large local following, or have a national audience, or both perhaps, are all down.

   Imagine of Colorado, Nebraska and A&M were all playing well, as well as Texas and OU. Those names generate interest. K State, Texas Tech, Baylor and Iowa State generally don’t, regardless of how well they are playing.

3. bigdukesix said:

   September 29th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

   I agree with most of what tkhorn said, though I’d argue that the Big 12 only has 2 premier programs, and the Big 11 has 3 (Wisconsin?). We don’t have the same quality at the top, or the same quality in the middle. It’s just not a great conference for TV. We have a lot of schools that are in the middle of nowhere and also suck at football.

   schedule at least two BCS-school games per season, preferably one blockbuster and one mid-tier team(a la Ole Miss, UCLA, etc.).

   But I doubt this would be enough to get a better TV contract for the conference, which is the point of the post.

4. riano said:

   September 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

   Redfoot,
   Correct me if I am wrong… look up the top 5 highest rated regular season games of 2008. Tech is in 3 of them (more than any other school of the top 5); the other two are Tx/OU and FL/Bama title game. Check your facts before you lump Tech in with BU, KSU and ISU. Tech/Texas was also the highest rated game two weeks ago.

   Also, Tech/Texas last year (a regional game) had more viewers than USC/Ohio St. 2009 even while Tech is not ranked.

   Tech/OU will probably be a primtime national night game in Nov., like the last two years.

5. riano said:

   September 29th, 2009 at 10:07 pm

   Mistake on the “regional game” line but you get the point…

6. TaylorTRoom said:

   September 30th, 2009 at 3:51 am

   Tech can be exciting to watch, because of the Big 12’s strategy of encouraging offense by not calling holding the same way the other major conferences do. That works until the Big 12 gets a reputation as the arena league of D-1A.

7. TaylorTRoom said:

   September 30th, 2009 at 4:57 am

   Redfoot, the Big 10 has a good TV contract, despite weak non-conference scheduling, because they bought their own network. That is a great idea becaue the technology is moving towards allowing more fragmented audiences having access to games. In other words, 10 years ago a Big 10 game would not be broadcast in Seattle unless there were a significant number of Seattle-based viewers that wanted to see that game. The internet is going to allow 2500 Seattle residents that want to see a Michigan/PSU volleyball game to order it online. That’s the future. The SEC was the last conference to be able to strike a big broadcast deal.

   Could the Big 12 do the same as the Big 10? Well, web-based content will be standard in 10 years, so something will happen. Will the Big 12 share revenue like the Big 10? You tell me. Is the Big 12 as “tight” and unified of a conference as the Big 10?

8. Duke of Ohio said:

   September 30th, 2009 at 5:14 am

   TTR – The Big 12 is no unified at all, except that the other 11 schools are generally unified against Texas.

9. Duke of Ohio said:

   September 30th, 2009 at 5:14 am

   Make that “not unified.”

10. cris said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 5:39 am

    TEXAS NEED TO LEAVE THE BIG 12 AND GO TO THE SEC

11. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 5:55 am

    The SEC, Big 10, and PAC-10 are very unified conferences. These three conferences consist of schools that, within their unique alliances, share aligned goals and charters. Of course, they do so in different ways. The SEC schools are focused on athletic success as a way to prop up regional pride. The Big 10 schools are focused on athletic success as a component of overall institutional excellence.

    The other conferences are just regional collections for sports marketing purposes. There have been times when ties among Big 12 schools have been closer. For example, UT and TAMU have been able to cooperate towards common ends many times in their history. Unfortunately, the current TAMU AD hates the University of Texas, and has done so for years before taking the Ag job.

    The future is web-based content, and UT is facilitizing towards that end. The dilemma for the Big 12 is how to get UT and TAMU to share revenue with the smaller schools. Certainly, doing so makes the conference stronger, but UT has to ask if a stronger Big 12 is good or bad for the Longhorns.

    Michigan doesn’t have to ask that. It knows that a strong Big 10 is good for Michigan. Michigan doesn’t have to worry about Iowa paying street agents in Dearborn to recruit away star players- the Big 10 conference is committed to not allowing that.

    Georgia doesn’t have to ask if a strong SEC is good for Georgia. Georgia knows that the SEC will turn a blind eye to anything it does to keep talent in-state, especially if the recruiting rival is a non-SEC school.

    Texas doesn’t know that about the Big 12. After the last couple of years, with the tie-breaker vote, the BCS votes, KSU working with Brian Butler, it has to wonder if one of the goals of the Big 12 is to hold it down. UT knows that when talking about media revenue, the Big 12 needs it more than it needs the Big 12.

12. Bob in Houston said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 6:13 am

    I know there are more people in Big Ten country. Not sure about the SEC. But that’s a factor as well. Not only are there fewer games people care about, but also fewer people who care to watch.

13. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 6:20 am

    All interesting stuff. The Big XII is starting to smell like the old SWC.

    The poorer schools are trying to find ways to get more $$$ from the rich schools. Bad TV contracts. Uneven level of cheating is going on (I say uneven because I have come to believe – from direct observation – that there is no school in Div. 1, Div. 1AA, or Div II that doesn’t “cheat” to some extent).

    Bad TV contracts mean less money for everyone. That offends the wealthy schools that think they should do better than the bottom feeders.

    The next sign to look for is the wealthy schools (we’ve looked at those from AD budgets to attendance figures before, and they are y’all, A&M, OU and Nebraska) to start to push the lower tier schools to keep a higher percentage of the revenue because they know they generate the revenue.

    That will be the sign that the death spiral has begun.

14. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 6:22 am

    You know, the more I think about it, the more inevitable it seems…

    1. The way to maximize Big 12 TV money is through a Big 12 network, similar to the Big 10 network. The technology is driving in that direction.

    2. The Big 12 will have to decide whether to share revenue equally (despite the fact that UT, OU, TAMU, and NU generate the most). ISU, BU, KSU, TT, and OSU vote yes. KU, OU, Mizzou, NU and CU probably vote yes out of conference loyalty built over 8 decades. Are UT and TAMU able to veto? Can they leverage other concessions with a “yes” vote?

15. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 6:30 am

    It is up to Texas A&M and Texas to decide whether that isin their best interests. I, frankly, cannot see how it is. We are in a shotgun marriage with people we generally would rather not be associated with.

    If we want to stay, fine. You have to go ahead and share equally and buy into it fully. It’s sort of like being married – you ain’t fully committed until you have a joint checking account. but then you have to live with the consequences of that commitment.

    I, personally, think Texas A&M and Texas both feel they would be able to do better in some other type oif arrangement. And I think $ Bill loves money more than he hates Texas, so I hope we can figure out a way to move forward together.

16. South '06 said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 6:35 am

    Count me as firmly entrenched in the “strength of conference” camp. The Big 12 is just better off when Texas, OU, A&M, Nebraska, and Colorado are playing at a high level.

17. Swampfox said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 6:43 am

    The Big 12 made Texas what it is right now. Don’t forget it. Oh what a powerhouse you were from the 80’s to the 90’s.

    Nebbie/CU lost their Texas recruiting foothold when you joined a relevant conference again. Texas is nothing more than TCU without the Big 12.

18. riano said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:08 am

    Troom…
    Have you not noticed that most of college football is moving to some form of spread. Texas adopted a passing spread.

19. Gene Claude said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:15 am

    I find it humorous that KSU is criticized for scheduling creampuffs by a Texas blog a week after KSU traveled to UCLA and Texas is fresh off a titillating scrimmage against UTEP. Texas is one of the guiltiest pussball schedulers in the nation, yet still draws big ratings. How does that affect your claim that scheduling is the problem?

    It is also not particularly instructive to take the week that several teams are on bye (it isn’t just Texas, although I wouldn’t expect most Texas fans to have any clue about that) to criticize scheduling. The season opening Mizzou v Illinois game in StL is better than almost any SEC team dares schedule, certainly as a season opener, for instance.

    What is more instructive is to look at the relative TV populations of the states that comprise the Big 12. Outside of Texas, there ain’t shit. Look at the Big 10 populations (to say nothing of the ACC or Big East, even). The Big 12 is definitely more fractured, but it is due to demographics–Texas is about 1/2 of the Big 12 population. It is a league of Texas and others.

    The root of the problem, much like the root of most of the world’s problems, lies in the incentive system. The current system incentivizes scheduling wins over fun. Change the incentives and you’ll change behaviour. Easier said than done.

    I’ll tell you another thing…reading even the enlightened BC Texas fans’ opinions incenses me at times. I want to resurrect Copernicus and send on down to let people know that we aren’t all orbiting Austin. Someone claims that the Big 12 only has 2 elite programs while claiming that Wisconsin might be a third in the Big 10? That’s a memory shorter than Ollie North’s. Since 2001, Wisconsin has 5 more wins than Missouri and 5 fewer than Nebraska. It wasn’t all that long ago that the North ruled the roost and Texas and Oklahoma were on downswings. I’m certainly not saying a return is imminent, but let’s not just throw the history books out the window. It is possible that Missouri and Nebraska become (or stay) perennial top 15 teams that in years in which the star align can challenge for the Big 12 title.

20. shockthenation said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:32 am

    “The Big 12 made Texas what it is right now. Don’t forget it. Oh what a powerhouse you were from the 80’s to the 90’s.

    Nebbie/CU lost their Texas recruiting foothold when you joined a relevant conference again. Texas is nothing more than TCU without the Big 12.”

    Your last sentence is ridiculous and doesn’t warrant a response but you guys would be where had you not aligned with the Texas schools at this point in time with everything being about tv money? Would your games even be on Versus? The Texas schools needed a bigger conference and the Big Eight needed the Texas tv sets. Not really a one way street here.

21. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:35 am

    Recent competitiveness is irrelevant in this discussion. As I said, it’s all about the money. MONEY MONEY MONEY. “SHOW MEEEEEEEEE THE MONEY”!!!!!!!!

    By any quantitative financial measure (AD Budget, attendance, whatever), there are four heavyweight programs in the Big XII – Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

22. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:36 am

    Gene Claude, Texas has scheduled one D-1AA team in the last 20 years. This is the second year in, well, forever, that we haven’t scheduled a BCS team in non-conference (Arkansas bailed so they could play TAMU). The other year was 2007, when we had TCU as a non-conference opponent.

    You’re a Missouri guy, right? Missouri is a member of the AAU, as is Texas, TAMU, CU, NU, and KU. These are all schools with serious goals as universities. I wish the Big 12 were more like the Big 10, where all of the schools value their institutional reputation more than they value athletic success (well, maybe the Buckeyes don’t). I’m surprised you don’t feel the same.

    This is not about money. UT doesn’t need money. This is about having the right affiliations. Why is the University of Iowa the flagship of that state? To a large extent, it’s because they are in the Big 10, which is also a research coalition. If Iowa State were in the Big 10, and Iowa in the Big 12, which do you think would be the flagship?

    Street agents, partial qualifiers – the Big 10 doesn’t condone any of them. I wish the Big 12 were more that way.

23. nordberg said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:36 am

    The Big 12 made OU what it is right now. Don’t forget it. Oh what a powerhouse you were from the 80’s to the 90’s.

    The SEC made Alabama what it is right now. Don’t forget it. Oh what a powerhouse you were from the 80’s to the 90’s.

    The Pac-10 made USC what it is right now. Don’t forget it. Oh what a powerhouse you were from the 80’s to the 90’s.

24. jc25 said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:37 am

    Nice write-up.

    1) Re: on the creampuff skeds. Yeah, Joe Big XII team gets a guaranteed W, but it also gets a guaranteed gate that it doesn’t have to share with any other Big XII team. You gotta think that’s a lot of green lining their pockets. It’s not particularly progressive thinking, but if we’re going for the “every man for himself” concept pervading the Big XII, then that’s a thought.
    2) Re: on the TV revenue. You wonder if that is the motivation behind Texas scheduling stronger OOC games, rather than because they are aiming for “more competition.” While playing top tier matchups has benefits and drawbacks from a strictly football sense, the effect it would have on TV revenue must be through the roof. This would hold particularly true if 10 years from now (when we have a Texas-USC home and home), all college football games are being broadcast on the “Big XII Network,” “Pac-10 Network,” or if DeLoss has his way, “Longhorn TV.” In those cases, you’re not making ANY money off television contracts; you’re making money off advertising. And what better way to draw advertisers than through top tier games?
    3) Re: “Top tier” games. Why are the OU and A&M games not considered top tier? Last year, OU was the home team…so that becomes top tier for Big XII? Next year, A&M will be…etc. If you want to play these top tier OOC games, you’re going to have to schedule home and homes. It seems rather arbitrary to pick this particular weekend, right before conference play starts for Big XII, but with conference games for the SEC and Big 10. So maybe the answer is to start playing conference games early after all. It seemed to work for Texas-Texas Tech.

25. Donny Boudreaux said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:40 am

    Excellent thought provoking article and responses.

    The best idea imho would be earlier conference games.

    What if weekend #1 we had Nebraska v. Colorado and weekend #2 we had OU v. Baylor. Texas v tech was weekend #3. Weekend #4 we could have Mizzou v Tamu

    We don’t need to do the ACC thing where Miami hasn’t even played an OOC game yet and has already played arguably the 3 toughest teams in the ACC. But each team playing ONE OOC game early on would be very doable.

    But to balance the schedule to where every week early on you have at least one decent matchup would be great. As a fan it would help you better gauge where the conference strengths are.

    Also…. From a UT standpoint it would provide a break between murderer’s row like we had last year of 5 straight ranked opponents. That to me is something the SEC takes advantage of. Sure Florida may face 5 ranked opponents in a year. But in between those monsters they play dwarfs.

26. srr50 said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 7:50 am

    The Big 12 TV contract sucks because it was negotiating from a neutral position — at best — when the contracts were signed.

    The number of TV’s available in the markets is not enough to draw big dollars, and the pull of the programs nation-wide is not enough to make up for that.

    A Big 12 TV network might be part of the solution, but frankly it again doesn’t have the kind of fan base that the Big 10 had.

    A quick look at attendance figures for 2008 will tell you all you need to know as to why the SEC and the Big 10 have the best TV contracts.

    Out of the Top Ten teams in average attendance, 6</strong) were from the SEC and 3 were from the Big 10. Texas was other school in the Top Ten, coming in at #5 in average attendance.

    The Top 3 were Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State. Tennessee was 4th, then Georgia, LSU, Alabama, Florida and Auburn rounded out the Top Ten.

    Oklahoma, Nebraska and A&M were 12, 13 and 14th in attendance last year.

    Kentucky – a basketball school – had better attendance than Va. Tech, Missouri, Cal, or Texas Tech.

    The Rose Bowl is the highest rated bowl game outside of the BCS championship game EVERY year, doesn't matter who is playing. Part of that is tradition, part of it is the national pull of the Big 10.

    Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa also have large fan bases, and huge alumni groups that are willing to pay a few bucks a month for a Big 10 network outside the primary conference area. That's the key — are there enough fans who have an interest in your league outside its dominant area to fund the network? I doubt that the Big 12 has a national fan base.

    The SEC got its multi-billion dollar deals with ESPN/ABC and CBS because they saw that the Big 10 network was growing, and they surmised (correctly) that the SEC was another conference that could move to its own network and get a national footprint. That's why they were willing to pay so much for the SEC for the next fifteen years.

    Which brings up another point. Go ahead and get a better schedule, but understand that ESPN controls a helluva lot of the inventory (airtime) and they are committed to the SEC and the Big 10, and those conferences will get the lion's share of the primetime slots.

    They certainly will also get the lion's share of the publicity and marketing ESPN) in the WWL’s best interest to plug the product it is paying so much for.

27. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 8:04 am

    I realize I have been talking around something I need to expand on. Look, almost all of you have a cable or satellite box, with a DVR function. In five years, that box will be more like a computer than it is even now. It will be very easy for everybody to order any game that has a camera in front of it, from anywhere in the nation, no matter who your provider is.

    UT is already wiring all its athletics facilities. If UT plays NU in volleyball, and ESPN passes on it, UT will still turn on the camera. There may be 5,000 Longhorn and Husker fans spread across the nation willing to pay $2 to see the game on their 50″ and larger screen. They will be able to.

    Many of the so-called “non-revenue” sports will be able to generate revenue. As for football games, the only reason a game wouldn’t be available for at least ppv would be because the AD decided to “blackout” to increase ticket sales. Even then, fans in far off states might be allowed to buy it.

    That’s the future, and determining how revenue will be shared will be the big question.

28. Tim said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 8:11 am

    The normal BC blog article is average writing quality at best, and has an underling tone of the typical UT elitism. This article is chocked full of UT elitism and low on basic common sense.

    Texas Tech had 3 of the highest rated games last year, as others have pointed out. Texas Tech is a good national draw and big TV knows it. Of course we can’t say that on BC, we have to say that Texas Tech has had some highly rated games ONLY BECAUSE THEY HOLD ON THE OFFENSIVE LINE! It’s not because they have become a good entertaining football team to watch, it’s ONLY BECAUSE THEY HOLD.

    Oh, and like other have pointed out the timing of your little piece of shit “article” is terrible because Texas Tech just played one of the bigger non-conference games in the Big 12 last week. While Mack Brown brought in UTEP and desperately ran up the score trying to draw attention and style points for the voters after mean ole Texas Tech didn’t bend over on National TV like they were supposed to.

    If UT wants out of the Big 12 so badly just go, go and take your 1 conference title with you. Yeah, that’s right big bad elite UT has 1 conference title in over a decade of Big 12 play. So, go ahead leave no one cares, I’m sure every team in the Big 12 will come by and help you pack your bags if it means no longer getting screwed by the refs every time any team plays the mighty UT.

    What a freaking joke of humanity, you win1 conference title in over a decade and try to pull this elitist crap out of your ass like you’re better than the rest of the conference.

29. nordberg said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 8:17 am

    You are remarkably uninformed Tim, as usual.

30. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 8:18 am

    Tim, you ignorant slut. That game last week was a C-USA game. It was played in Houston. The Big 12 networks declined to show a game last Saturday night. Sure, the NU/ULL game was on FSN ppv. Nobody wanted to show ISU/Army, OSU/Grambling, TAMU/UAB or BU/NWSU.

    Go away. The grownups are talking. I hear that ESPNU is replaying the 2008 UT/TT game.

31. HenryJames said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 8:23 am

    People want to watch Texas Tech!*

    *when they play UT, OU, etc

32. srr50 said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 8:25 am

    The Big 12 TV contract sucks because in part the conference negotiated from – at best – a neutral position when they were drawn up.

    You can talk about getting better schedules, but that is not a major part of the solution.

    It is possible that Missouri and Nebraska become (or stay) perennial top 15 teams that in years in which the star align can challenge for the Big 12 title.

    You can talk about “Nebraska getting back to what it was,” or A&M or Missouri, and talk about programs being cyclical. That’s fine, but there is nothing cyclical about the popularity of the SEC and the Big 10.

    Out of the Top Ten programs in attendance in 2008, six were from the SEC and the top three were from the BIG 10. Only Texas broke the stranglehold coming in at #5.

    Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State led the nation in attendance last year. Tennessee was #4 then Texas followed by Georgia, LSU, Alabama, Florida and Auburn.

    Both leagues have large fan bases (and large alumni pools) that turn out no matter what the record. South Carolina is #17 in attendance, and is always in the Top Twenty. Kentucky — a basketball school — has better football attendance than Va. Tech, Missouri, California or Texas Tech.

    The Big 10 Network works because of the pull it has in secondary markets. The large alumni bases are willing to spend a couple of dollars outside the primary markets of the league to watch. Don’t forget, that the Rose Bowl is the highest rated bowl game, outside of the BCS championship contest, EVERY year, no matter who plays.

    The SEC has a multi-billion dollar deal with its partners (ABC/ESPN and CBS)in part because of the Big 10 network. The broadcasters understood that the SEC was another league that could srike out on its own and get a national footprint, so they were willing to pay top dollar to lock up the SEC for 15 years.

    And another thing. While getting a more attractive schedule might help, the WWL controls a helluva lot of the available inventory (air time) and they have committed a lot of the prime slots to the SEC and the Big 10. They have also committed its considerable marketing efforts to publicizing its product (The SEC on ESPN)

33. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 8:35 am

    “And another thing. While getting a more attractive schedule might help, the WWL controls a helluva lot of the available inventory (air time) and they have committed a lot of the prime slots to the SEC and the Big 10. They have also committed its considerable marketing efforts to publicizing its product (The SEC on ESPN)”

    You’re right. Right now, the most valuable asset is clusters of fans. making broadcasts profitable. However, the technology is moving towards making…I don’t know the right term…splintercasts? more profitable. The Big 10 network had some birthing pains (trying to strongarm the cable companies), but over time it will look like a genius move.

    Between the lack of broadcast channel availability, and the advances in online viewing, the Big 12 network seems inevitable. When that happens, we won’t be talking about having good “fourth best” games, because every game will be able to generate revenue.

34. TheSpoon said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Tech’s out of conference schedule next year includes two teams that are currently in the top 15. I hope that’s enough for you all.

35. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am

    The Spoon, if so, that’s great. If I can’t admit I’m wrong on an anonymous internet bbs, when can I? My comment was made in reference to the seven D-1AA teams Tech has played the last five years.

36. pickup18 said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Tim hit this one on the head Taylor – pretty poor effort here. You’re calling out TT, KU and KSU for scheduling creampuffs? Look in the mirror dude! ULALA, Wyoming, UTEP and Central Florida – fantastic!

    And you pick an off week to put this one up. You guys gonna do anything about this TV issue or just bitch about it? Never mind, don’t answer that.

37. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Every one of those home games was picked up by a network the Big 12 had a contract with (the ULM game was ppv, admittedly). That means that the networks thought those games were more attractive than the options. Nobody wanted to broadcast KSU/Mass, TT/NDSU, TT/Rice, KSU/ULL, or KSU/TennTech. Texas Tech’s first game on TV this year, despite what Tim says about its ratings prowess, was the league game in Austin. Its second was a road game against a ranked foe. What do you make of that? Is UT pulling its weight in marketing the conference, or not?

38. BPDuncan said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:41 am

    Just some interesting television stats for UT games so far this year.

    ULM – FSN Pay-per view
    Wyoming – Versus
    Tech – ABC Primetime
    UTEP – FSN

    Seems Texas only gets prime slots when it plays Tech or OU based on the schedules. Meanwhile Tech has played 2 ranked teams already (when Texas has played none) on a National ESPN/ABC broadcast.

    Quit blaming everyone else for Texas TV woes, when 90% of the issues reside in the Big 12 offices and their inability to negotiate decent contracts.

39. Huckleberry said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Some people can’t comprehend what they read.

    And the Central Florida game is a perfect example of one of the things TTR talked about. We’re not talking about the away game, because that was a C-USA game (of course ESPN picked it up because Texas was in it, but let’s ignore that for a moment).

    The decision to move the Tech @ Texas game up means that instead of having one good game (Nebraska @ VT) and a bunch of crap games in Week 3, the conference had two good games and then bad games. That created a weekend with some TV depth and the entire conference only had to schedule one tough OOC opponent to get there. On the flip side, when we play Central Florida on 11/7 there are 5 conference games that TV can choose from instead. It turns out that OU @ UNL is the best game on the schedule that day with some crappy games from the rest of the conference (TAMU @ CU in a save Dan Hawkins’ job showdown might actually be the second best with Robert Griffin’s injury taking some luster off Mizzou @ BU), but the possibilities that type of conference scheduling creates should be obvious.

    Personally, it seems like moving one of the decent 10/24 conference games would have been a better move. But that’s hindsight. There are four decent conference games that day. UT@MU, OU@KU, TAMU@TTU, OSU@BU (Griffin factor notwithstanding).

40. Gene Claude said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:56 am

    Taylor, I don’t want to sound like an ass….this is a thought provoking article. We are working on a sort of counterpoint over at AT that I hope will further the discussion. I think you have drawn the wrong conclusions from the data….I believe that population and population density is the primary reason why the Big 12 TV contract sucks. I do think that the massive size difference between UT (and A&M, to a lesser extent) driven markets and the rest of the conference poses some almost intractable problems. And to a much lesser extent, the vastly differing demographics across the conference, especially as compared to the SEC, poses some difficulties.

    All this and more over at BC’s smaller, inferior conference-mate, atomicteeth….

41. Gene Claude said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 9:59 am

    The moving conference games up is very interesting.

    I would also like to say, for the record, that I am the biggest possible cheerleader for Mizzou scheduling murderer’s row in noncon. Giving up certain September fun and revenues for speculative January fun and revenues seems to violate the bird-in-hand maxim. But, that gets back to college football’s perverse incentive system.

42. bateshorn said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am

    The Washington Nationals define suck. They have a skinflint owner, fired a manager midseason, Fired a GM after he got caught tampering with carribean prospects, failed to sign their top draft pick last year, didn’t trade Alfonso Soriano when he was good, hoping to sign him instead. The Orioles owner controls their T.V. rights for at least another decade and uses that right to not show their games locally, thus depriving them of the benefits of a NESN or YES network. They built their stadium in a bad area of town on the spec that it would regentrify. It didn’t, the economy collapsed and the stadium is surrounded by a half dozen empty or nearly empty condo and office buildings. Beyond being located nearish a metro (subway) stop, the team has ZIP going for it other than some nice view from the Right field upper deck. And the crowds show that: It’s empty just like the Expos were.

    Except on these dates: June 23-25, July 14, July 16-19. Why? Red Sox, All Star Game, Cubs.

    It’s the same for the Orioles: They only sell that beautiful stadium out when the Yankees and the Red Sox come to town.

    And the Cubs are marginal this year.

    Who wants to watch the Nationals and the Braves? Just swap out those names for ISU and KSU and reask the question.

43. cazadores said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 10:17 am

    Interesting article and thread. Some well made points, but I think that we need to also talk about demographics, not just population and TV sets. The Big XII is, for the most part, “flyover” country. Neither the left nor right coasts really give a shit about us or our teams. Sure, there are good college football fans in other parts of the country who enjoy watching Texas, OU, and Nebraska play football because of their respective and shared histories, but after that I don’t think many of our schools draw viewers other than alumni and drunk 30-somethings at Hooters. So the question becomes on a week-in, week-out basis, who is going to watch a Big 12 game over an SEC or Big 10 game? And what are the demographics of those who will watch? Why is this important? Because of what’s happening with the country and the economy. Texas is growing, and much of that growth is Hispanic. That is a huge growing demographic. The Midwest & Big 10 country is in horrible shape. Not sure what’s going to happen with the South, but Florida lost population last year for the first time ever. In short, at least part of the Big XII is in a growing market. Can’t say the same for Big 10 (or ACC or Big East for that matter). SEC Country will hold its own. PAC-10 will probably grow if California can find its way out of the current economic disaster. My guess is that if and when we renegotiate the Big XII TV contracts, we will be in better position than we think. SEC numbers? Maybe not. The point about the lower tier SEC match-ups vis a vis the Big XII matchups is accurate. But I think we can get a good contract. The demographics continue to move our way.
    In the meantime, I agree we all need to schedule better teams – everyone ought to play a good BCS team and a good “BCS-buster” team in their non-conference. Second, the conference as a whole needs to market more to its demographics. Texas does, not sure about the other Texas schools.

    Last, if you haven’t seen this, pretty cool: Yankee Stadium to host a football game between a Big 12 school and a Big East School next year.
    http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=204804262

    Hook Em.

44. cazadores said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am

    Clarification – its a Bowl Game in Yankee Stadium. I am sure tickets will be economically priced.

45. bateshorn said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 10:23 am

    Cazadore makes an interesting point: In the midatlantic, I don’t have to explain the attraction of a OSU-USC match to the casual NFL fan. I did have to explain Texas Vs. TT.

46. HenryJames said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Do you think you could explain Tim to them?

47. Minnesotahorn said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 10:54 am

    We have trouble explaining Tim to dedfischer.

48. VoiceOfReason said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Quality OOC scheduling is irrelevant to the Big 12 TV problems. The quality of the SEC OOC scheduling approximates that of the Big 12, and they have the best TV deal of them all.

    I do agree that including conference games in September and not concentrating the OOC creampuff lot in September would help matters tremendously.

    There are 3 major reasons why our TV contract stinks

    1) The lack of population in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. There’s just not enough casual fans in those states to be considered a ratings base for TV.

    2) The lack of revenue sharing and overall cooperation and teamwork for the conference.

    3) Our league got flat out out-negotiated at the last round of contract discussions.

    Bottom line is that we need the richest TV deal possible. Ground rules for the next negotiation need to start with revenue sharing and universal football broadcasting of all league games. The best leagues already do both. Start there and negotiate the richest possible deal with somebody a little smarter than Don Beebe on point. I agree with the original post that spreading out league games would help a bit. I disagree that the quality of OOC needs to be upgraded for TV (although I wish it was upgraded for overall quality of product reasons).

49. Ricky said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am

    I noted in a thread awhile back the fact that the Big 12 is a population deadzone. We have like 10 million less people in the Big 12 states than the Pac 10, which shares a similar, but slightly smaller, overall population to the Big 10 and SEC. This is something 20% less people to watch games! The Big East may suck, but it sits on a population base of almost 100 million people. I almost wouldn’t be surprised if the Big East managed to get a better TV contract than the Big 12. It used to be a bragging point that Nebraska’s football stadium on Saturdays constituted the second largest population density in the state, but what it really shows is that there aren’t enough TVs in the Big 12 to get top dollar for any games but those pitting the few top programs.

    Scheduling doesn’t help, but I really don’t think that matters all that much and I am sure we would go with an SEC-like scheduling pattern of putting conference games earlier in the season to balance out the creampuffs if there was that kind of money on the table…I am sure network execs made that part of their negotiations with the SEC.

50. cazadores said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Scheduling is an issue. The point is that in order to have “attractive” games, or games comparable to the SEC match-ups and to reach into other population centers, we need to schedule good teams from other conferences. We need to go play Penn State and UCLA and Michigan and Notre Dame. And if the rest of the Big XII would do that, we would improve our lot drastically. Just one really good non-con game by every team in the Big XII would raise our profile and attact more fans.

    And at some point on the whole “conference” discussion, you need to factor in other sports and academics.

51. srr50 said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Being attractive to secondary markets.

    That in a nutshell is what this is about. Can a Big 12 network get enough folks outside its own demographic footprint to get on cable and satellite carriers across the country?

    The Big 10 network is the franchise model, but it went through a lot of growing pains. The league spent a year negotiating with various outlets across the country. It desired to be on the expanded basic cable while Time Warner (and others) wanted to put them on the more expensive sports tier. Right now the Big 10 has agreements with over 250 providers and is in 19 of the Top 20 TV markets — on the expanded basic cable tier (except for Direct TV and the Dish Network – where they are on the sport tier). That means they are collecting somewhere around 15 cents a subscriber for those outlets outside Big 10 Territory.

    You get about 35 live football and regular season men’s basketball games live, plus women’s basketball, and other non-revenue sports. The 24/7 cable channel is filled out with coaches shows, game repeats and shows highlighting each campus.

    Getting on expanded basic cable is the key, and that will be a bitch to negotiate for the Big 12.

52. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    I’ve seen several Tech and Mizzou fans weigh in on this thread. To illustrate what I’m talking about, here is football revenue for the 2004 season. I’ve got more recent data somewhere, but this is enough to illustrate the gap I’m talking about:

    Texas A&M
    Ticket Sales $21,949,047
    Contributions $5,244,392
    NCAA/Conference Distributions $7,552,987 (19.7% of total)
    Other Sources: $3,613,551
    Total: $38,359,977

    Texas
    Ticket Sales $20,161,278
    Contributions $15,680,307
    NCAA/Conference Distributions $7,099,874 (13.3% of total)
    Other Sources: $10,262712
    Total: $53,204,171

    Texas Tech
    Ticket Sales $5,692,222
    Contributions $4,771,703
    NCAA/Conference Distributions $5,945,586 (30.8% of total)
    Other Sources: $2,904,085
    Total: $19,313,596

    Mizzou
    Ticket Sales $7,362,767
    Contributions $1,238,526
    NCAA/Conference Distributions $5,892,711 (37.0% of total)
    Other Sources: $1,413396
    Total: $15,907,400

53. Gene Claude said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Ag, if you can dig up newer info I would like to see it. I don’t disagree with your assessment, although the statement that recent results don’t matter, while maybe correct in the short term, is incorrect in the long term. Nebraska got to be a heavyweight due to the success of its football program. I would be willing to bet that 20 years of Mizzou football relevancy would significantly change the equation.

54. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    I’ll try to find what I have at home. I know, from looking before, it supports Tech being small time – I don’t recall Mizzou’s numbers.

55. Gene Claude said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    I’m interested in all the data you have. I think the data is that Mizzou is small time for being the only DI school in the conference’s second most populace state. I think the trend line has been improving relatively rapidly the last few years, though. Hopefully will be part of a larger Big 12 TV contract post I’m working on.

56. TaylorTRoom said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

    Gene Claude, I know Mizzou has significant basketball revenue. I’d be curious about how basketball affects TV contracts. Have to say that as a Texas fan, I don’t know very much about basketball TV contracts or donations.

57. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    i have the 2007-2008 numbers and will post them shortly.

58. Neon Boudreaux said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Interesting conversation. I think it boils down to football simply being more popular in SEC land than it is in B12 land. As far as “potential” I don’t think simply comparing population makes as much sense as comparing Athletic Department revenue.

    AD revenue should roughly show a combined matrix of all the factors TV is interested in (alumni base/rabid fans, local population/casual fans and national interest). Here’s a comparison between B12 and SEC teams:

    1. Texas 120m (1 nationally)
    2. Florida 106m (3)
    3. Auburn 89m (7)
    4. Alabama 88.5m (8)
    5. Tennessee 88.5m (9)
    6. Okie State 88.5m (10)
    7. Kansas 86m (11)
    8. LSU 84m (12)
    9. Georgia 84m (13)
    10. Oklahoma 77m (17)
    11. Nebraska 75.5m (20)
    12. A&M 75m (21)
    13. Kentucky 71m (22)
    14. S Carolina 66.5m (24)
    15. Arkansas 64m (27)
    16. Colorado 52.5m (43)
    17. Missouri 49m (46)
    18. KState 48m (47)
    19. Vanderbilt 45m (52)
    20. Baylor 44m (56)
    21. Texas Tech 43m (58)
    22. Iowa St 38.5 (63)
    23. Mississippi 35m (65)
    24. Miss St 30.5m (75)

    Southeastern Conference $853,790,632
    Big 12 $797,769,024

59. Neon Boudreaux said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    As a side-note and just to show how much more important football is to basketball on these numbers, UCLA is 25th nationally, North Carolina is 31 and Indiana is 38th.

60. riano said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Ag. See us after you come within 21 points of Tech in Lubbock. Wins and bowl performance are more meaningful than a big “net loss” budget.

61. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    From http://www.ope.ed.gov/athletics/

    For 2007-2008 school year, sorted by total athletic department budget: – the gap between A&M and the rest of the conference is striking

    Texas

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $12,892,079/$1,824,894/$14,716,973
    Football:$72,952,397
    Other (M/W/Total): $5,265,252/$3,961,441/$9,226,693
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $23,392,307
    Grand Total: $120,288,370

    OSU (inflated by T. Boone Pickens gift in “Not Allocated” catagory)

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $9,716,296/$723,274/$10,439,570
    Football: $23,106,517
    Others (M/W/Total): $3,245,686/$1,622,737/$4,868,423
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $50,139,928
    Grand Total: $88,554,438

    Kansas (unsure what the giant donations were in “Not Allocated” catagory)

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $14,578,095/$271,809/$14,849,904
    Football: $14,841,115
    Others (M/W/Total): $702,931/$350,320/$1,053,251
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $55,264,987
    Grand Total: $86,009,257

    Oklahoma

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $6,369,446/$1,315,675/$7,685,121
    Football: $40,922,446
    Other (M/W/Total): $618,100/$561,159/$1,179,259
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $27,311,183
    Grand Total: $77,098,009

    Mizzou

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $8,023,598/$319,470/$8,343,068
    Football: $19,301,864
    Others (M/W/Total): $239,523/$218,496/$458,019
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $21,010,835
    Grand Total: $49,113,786

    Texas A&M

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $9,250,279/$974,184/$10,224,463
    Football: $42,552,070
    Other (M/W/Total): $3,209,255/$4,321,627/$7,530,882
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $14,474,225
    Grand Total: $74,781,640

    Colorado

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $3,804,777/$523,328/$4,328,105
    Football: $28,755,199
    Others (M/W/Total): $349,723/$1,155,200/$1,504,923
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $18,043,669
    Grand Total: $52,631,896

    Mizzou

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $8,023,598/$319,470/$8,343,068
    Football: $19,301,864
    Others (M/W/Total): $239,523/$218,496/$458,019
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $21,010,835
    Grand Total: $49,113,786

    KSU

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $6,188,443/$740,982/$6,929,425
    Football: $21,900,159
    Othes (M/W/Total): $404,912/$579,100/$984,012
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport $18,346,517
    Grand Total: $48,160,113

    Baylor

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $3,524,789/$3,310,023/$6,834,812
    Football: $11,053,460
    Other (M/W/Total): $4,321,414/$6,615,164/$10,936,578
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport $15,326,913
    Grand Total: $44,151,763

    Texas Tech

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $7,127,522/$2,124,675/$9,252,197
    Football: $20,213,600
    Other (M/W/Total): $708,674/$552,813/$1,261,487
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $12,117,571
    Grand Total: $42,844,855

    Iowa State

    Basketball (M/W/Total): $5,982,727/$840,590/$6,823,317
    Football: $17,404,826
    Others (M/W/Total): $354,596/$3,018,914/$3,373,510
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $11,040,360
    Grand Total: $38,642,013

62. Neon Boudreaux said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Nice stats ag, but I would think that AD revenue is more important to the discussion of TV contracts than AD spending. Interesting that A&M operates darned near (in?) the red.

63. Neon Boudreaux said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Actually it looks like most of the schools operate right at the break even point. I guess that makes sense.

64. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    Dang – Mizzou twice and left out Nebraska.

    Nebraska:

    Basketball (M/W?Total): $6,318,062/$671,445/$6,989,507
    Football: $49,076,861
    Others (M/W/Total): $2,065,422/$2,226,101/4,291,523
    Not Allocated by Gender/Sport: $15,134,993
    Grand Total: $75,492,884

65. Ag_in_TX said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    Oh yeah – I just showed revenue side

66. Neon Boudreaux said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    My guess would be that 55m is for the 2 new facilities, the football and basketball complexes. There’s no way they’re being built out of the #s shown allocated for football or basketball. Prob makes the most sense to split that amount roughly evenly between the 2 programs.

67. ballrific said:

    September 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    “when 90% of the issues reside in the Big 12 offices and their inability to negotiate decent contracts.”

    this

68. Travis said:

    October 1st, 2009 at 6:12 am

    Thats why dollar bill is going to start charging the bats for admission

69. TB said:

    October 1st, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Gene Claude –

    Shoot me an email at bringonthecats –at– gmail dot com

70. Ricky said:

    October 1st, 2009 at 11:30 am

    I don’t think TV is looking much beyond the merchandising and ticket sales numbers when it comes to negotiating a contract (correct me if I am wrong). They don’t care if A&M’s AD can’t balance a budget, unless they can get him as the Big 12’s lead negotiator. TV needs viewers to sell to advertisers. They might like the fact that Nebraska sells out their stadium every home game, but if there is no one at home left to watch the game on TV then those sell outs look like money losers. I have to think population and popularity are two of the most compelling factors in getting a good TV contract and the Big 12 is definitely lacking in population to a much greater degree than any other major conference.

71. Neon Boudreaux said:

    October 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    I agree Ricky, but more than regional population there’s the problem of enthusiasm. There are probably more people in non-metropolitan SEC land, but most of their population centers are split with at least 1 other conference.

    Miami, Tampa, Atlanta- all should really only be counted as 1/2 SEC at most. I would give Houston and St Louis 1/2 Big 12 and the major metros go basically like this:

    1. Dallas, B12 6.5m
    2. Houston 1/2 B12 5.8m ~2.9m
    3. Atlanta 1/2 SEC 5.7m ~2.8m
    4. Miami 1/2 SEC 5.4m ~2.7m
    5. Denver B12 3m
    6. St. Louis 1/2 B12 2.9m ~1.5m
    7. Orlando SEC 2.7m
    8. Kansas City B12 2m
    9. Nashville SEC 1.8m
    10. Louisville 1/2 SEC 1.3m ~0.7m
    11. OKC B12 1.3m
    12. Greenville SEC 1.2m
    13. Birmingham SEC 1.2m
    14. New Orleans SEC 1.2m
    15. Knoxville SEC 1m
    15. Tulsa B12 1m

    Again, while the SEC has more regional population, the all-important metro areas are fairly even, maybe with a slight B12 edge. I think the answer lies in enthusiasm gap, though that should be more obvious in AD revenues and it’s not as much as I thought it would be.

72. srr50 said:

    October 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Again, while the SEC has more regional population, the all-important metro areas are fairly even, maybe with a slight B12 edge.

    Take a look at the DFW market (#5)and its coverage of college football compared to Atlanta (#8)

    It is not even close. College football is much more important in the major metro areas of the SEC. Houston is a Top Ten market but it cares even less about college football than Dallas — at least Big 12 football.

73. hobbeshorn said:

    October 1st, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    The enthusiasm factor is huge… Here in Wichita, KS ( largest metro in KS) the #1 local radio sports talk show spent 1 hour discussing wichita state’s new turf for the baseball field and 45 min discussing the WSU plane crash….maybe 10 min devoted to Big 12 overall and another 5 to MLB…. This isn’t an everyday schedule but it would not happen in OKC…. College football is more important to SEC metro fans because they have no NFL….Check coverage of the Falcons and Cowboys to see my point. All those states with no professional teams leaves a huge void which college football has filled. Big 12 has Dallas, Denver, KC, Houston, St. Louis for the fan who never attended college (or went to a small college) to follow… the SEC has Tennessee, Atlanta, New Orleans (Carolina and Jacksonville are gimmicks) Miami is not SEC country. Competition for dollars is tougher in Big 12 country.

74. TaylorTRoom said:

    October 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 am

    SRR, will population density become less important, as more TV content is delivered through the web? In the old antenna days, and still in the current TV cable days, it was/is important to have high densities of fans in high population centers, due to the technology. When everybody in the country is able to click to the content they want, won’t population density matter less, and total number of fans regardless of density matter more?

75. srr50 said:

    October 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 am

    When everybody in the country is able to click to the content they want, won’t population density matter less, and total number of fans regardless of density matter more?

    Which, IMO will make the SEC even stronger as time goes on. their multi-billion dollar contract with ABC/ESPN and CBS is probably the last major broadcast contract.

76. TaylorTRoom said:

    October 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 am

    That makes sense. I think the Big 10 is looking smarter and smarter, though. They organized a network and worked out the revenue agreement to everybody’s satisfaction- big and small schools. That’s ironic, because I remember a lot of articles criticizing the Big 10 network at its launch, asking how they ever expect to make money on it.

77. srr50 said:

    October 2nd, 2009 at 8:01 am

    I was surprised as well Taylor, over the success of the Big 10 Network, they thought their fan base was large enough outside their primary area to sustain a monthly subscription fee from the carriers.

    I guess the mass movement away from the Rust Belt actually helped their venture.

78. Matador44 said:

    October 13th, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Well, the Big 12 needs to get on the stick, quickly, and get a network, because our part of country is getting overrun with over-the-air SEC broadcasts now (thank you, very little!) and with the Big 10 network.
    MWC even has a network, though I don’t get that in Dallas with Uverse.

    But Big 12 needs to 86 Dan Bebee horribly, and get going on this fast!

79. Matador44 said:

    October 13th, 2009 at 10:56 am

    And another glaring indictment of how the contract stinks – the A&M-Tech game will NOT be on TV, and there’s at least two duds of conference games that WILL be on that roughly no one cares about!

Leave a Reply