Big 12 Announces 2006-07 ESPN Women's Basketball Telecast Schedule

[swok34]

2006-07 Big 12 ESPN Television Schedule

Times: CST
Sunday, Nov. 12 DePaul at Oklahoma ESPN2 2:30 p.m.
Sunday, Dec. 10 Texas at Duke ESPNU 12:00 p.m.
Wednesday, Dec. 20 Ohio State at Oklahoma ESPN2 6:00 p.m.
Sunday, Jan. 7 Purdue at Texas ESPN2 2:00 p.m.
Sunday, Feb. 11 Kansas State at Texas Tech ESPN2 2 or 4:30 p.m.
Monday, Feb. 12 Texas at Oklahoma ESPN2 6:00 p.m.
Sunday, Feb. 25 Texas A&M at Baylor ESPN2 2:00 p.m.

[swok34]

ok, I'm thinking we need a new media negotiator.......

Big East Conference women's basketball will make approximately 11 regular-season appearances on ESPN or ESPN2 each year, in addition to the conference championship.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2565092

[sybarite]

Eastern Sports Pandering Network? We don't stand a chance without a godfather. I figure that what the Big Twelve really needs is to expand on the FoxSportsSouthwest, and I hate supporting anything that has anything to do with FOX. The Big East now includes NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Jersey, Connecticut, and Chicago. That' probably the biggest TV market in the country.

I wonder if the ACC, SEC, and Pac-ten might be interested in an alliance to counter that. You have to admit that the Big East was very smart in creating its TV market.

[ChipperF1]

"I wonder if the ACC, SEC, and Pac-ten might be interested in an alliance to counter that.

The ACC has deals with Disney, Raycom-Jefferson Pilot and Sunshine that is nearly as lucrative as the ESPN-Big East arrangement, and they've extended their agreement with ESPN.

The SEC is currently in the middle of a television contract with CBS for football and mens basketball that will probably be extended by October to 2015.

The Pac-10 has had a long relationship with ABC/ESPN and that relationship is current undergoing negotiation, but what I'm hearing is that both sides are working on a deal that approaches the number of the arrangement ABC/ESPN signed with the Big 10 earlier this year.

The biggest issue the Big XII has is the matter of a bigger national partner and how much money that national partner will put in. Big XII is investigating their own full-out network structure, but it is a massive outlay of money to get it started.
The Big 10 as they were planning a network was still looking to sign on with a national network to carry a portion of their money sports, thus the deal with the Disney family which was a smart play for both sides. The Big 10 realizes that a 24-hour network is a niche channel, they may make some money off of it, but the bulk of the cash is coming from the ABC/ESPN deal. Starting even a niche channel isn't cheap, that is something that ESPNU and CSTV understand intensely. Both are bumping into the issue of content. 8,736 hours of content in a year is a lot of time to fill and you have to fill it in a way that people watch it and advertisers make their investment off of it. More than ever, that will involve making investments in programming in terms of original productions, and a greater emphasis on sharp focus-programming and selling the programming to the viewers. Its a time where there is so much choice out there, and time and money are limited.

The Big XII has some deals with the majors. They are a part of the ESPN "Big" packages in basketball for example. But the league could use an expanded deal. The devil however is in the detail of who can dance with the league for the type of money the league may want, especially for the biggest products. Womens Basketball is not the biggest product, in fact for all intents and purposes, its swimming and diving. Its not the product that will be the fulcrum for a deal. The football and the mens basketball is..and really, its the football more than anything else..and even that's tenous unless more teams in the league get competitive (Yes, North Division. I'm talking to you.)

The interesting thing will be over the next three years. We will see college football restructuring and possibly a new Bowl Championship Series or even a Division I football playoff. The earning potential of such ventures will build the media landscape for college sports for a generation.

[YCN]

I abhor the concept of a Divison I-A football playoff for many reasons, there's no need to detail all of them here.

Let's start with the underlying premise that propels all of the major decisions in big-time college sports: making money.

As more games have been televised the money pool has been severely tilted toward the really major programs, although occasionally an outsider breaks through like Boise State. But the presidents and a lot of the AD's are very much against a grand playoff experiment for college football, because most programs are losing money right now, even some successful programs, because the pressure to win has become so great that athletic departments feel compelled to spend the money to swim rather than sink.

They DO understand the economic consequences to the university of being considered athletically second-rate: the loss of television, gate, merchandising, parking, concession, ticket sales, and various other kinds of revenues scares them. But that doesn't scare them as much as the huge budget deficits that have made many college football programs revenue drains at their institutions that affect their abilities to attract and retain students, and they are quite attuned to the concept that on an even playing field, alumni donor money is in the majority of cases unlikely to reverse the red ink tide that modern football madness has brought to the reality of educational funding.

Leave the playoff idea for another day well down the road. The admnistrators are NOT going to approve a playoff anytime soon. It destroys their bowl revenues and sends their boosters into depression more often than not. The concept seems viable, the implementation of the playoff system will kill college football for all but at most a few dozen schools. Everyone else will be Division I-AA or worse by proxy from that point forward.

And even a relatively even number of head coaches don't like the idea, and they are tilted toward a championship playoff for the reason of personal gain. Change for change's sake is never a good idea, nor is listening to the drumbeat of the media and the internet mavens over the dollars of the donors.

It won't happen anytime soon. Colleges and universities need less emphasis on football, not more. It is in the interest of every other collegiate sport to divest some of the current insanity of football for the greater benefit, because for an almost exclusively American esoteric sport, it makes no sense to do otherwise.

The Big 12 administration collectively sit on their butts and do very little for other sports (besides men's football and basketball), and it's hurting this conference by any rational perspective. Yes, they are the largest revenue-raisers, but they are raising revenues at great cost to the integrity of the institutions, the welfare of the athletes, and to the monetary benefit of gigantic media entities that care no more about those sports than any other, who only care about making the shareholders happy.

Who are the beneficiaries of this great avalanche of money? Well, it's not the athletes, not most of the institutions, and not the integrity of sport in general.

[ChipperF1]

"It is in the interest of every other collegiate sport to divest some of the current insanity of football for the greater benefit, because for an almost exclusively American esoteric sport, it makes no sense to do otherwise.

An "esoteric" sport that is drawing more fans and more revenue then every other sport put together on most campuses.

Are you trying to call for some sort of Internationalism here? LOL

"alumni donor money is in the majority of cases unlikely to reverse the red ink tide that modern football madness has brought to the reality of educational funding.

The real problem with educational funding isn't football, its me and you. Most Americans vote against funding education in nearly every regard anyway. You want to blame college football for that?

"And even a relatively even number of head coaches don't like the idea, and they are tilted toward a championship playoff for the reason of personal gain. Change for change's sake is never a good idea, nor is listening to the drumbeat of the media and the internet mavens over the dollars of the donors.

The head coaches didn't like the Big 12 Championship game either, but notice what happened when they saw the money involved? They got on board, because they realized that a bigger revenue stream means..THEY GET MORE MONEY TOO!" Look at the number of million-dollar coaches in this league. They are making money than whole departments of study at these universities. No matter what the next arrangement is, if the revenue stream adds to their wallets, they'll get on board.
Being an Oklahoma fan, would you begrudge Bob Stoops his salary?

"Who are the beneficiaries of this great avalanche of money? Well, it's not the athletes, not most of the institutions, and not the integrity of sport in general.

The athletes aren't benefitting? There's a cure for that, pay 'em. But oh, no we can't do that..That destroys the "integrity".

The institutions aren't benefitting? Are you kidding? When they are winning, they are benefitting. If you're Baylor you aren't right now. You will be if you win games. The institutions see interest in their school go up everytime they have a big winning year in football or mens basketball. Even womens basketball is starting to get to that level at some places.

The "integrity of the sport"? You know what you call a coach with integrity? fired. Next thing you'll tell me is Oklahoma fired Barry Switzer because of NCAA violations. We know the real reason.

Everybody is doing great. The Institutions that win are seeing the PR benefits that you can't buy...and they must be doing some business to build the skyboxes and the Godzillatrons and the 6'5" 230 quarterbacks that can throw 70 yards and run a 4.3....or the 6'4" female who can block any shot and block some sunshine...Or buy a $1 million coach who coached in a Super Bowl....or buy enough food to satisfy Mark Mangino's appetite.

Or enough money to meet Sherri Coale increasing financial demands, and after these seasons she'll have..her price is going to go way up...

My question to you, based on what you wrote...Sherri Coale wins a national championship..and asks for $750,000 a year and you are Joe Castiglone...would it violate your integrity to pay that money?