Comcast refuses to carry the Pac 12 Network in Baltimore or Washington. Don't know about Philly but I suspect it's the same. In fact I wonder where P12N is available east of the Rockies. Hardly the distribution model envisioned by Larry Scott last spring.

Freaked (thanks) provided a Chip Brown Orangebloods link under the Conference TV Money thread per Texas fb Coach Mac Brown's complaints about the time demands and the level of practice exposures required for the Longhorn Network (LHN). The story was also carried by the Associated Press (AP).

OK, since the LHN is the result of a contracted agreement between ESPN and the governing body (Regents) of the University of Texas, the complaint implies UT does not have autonomy in determining the number of appearances for coaches' interviews and conversations, and what network camera's may show during the first thirty minutes of daily practice drills. Since AD D. Dodd conveyed such matters will be addressed at season's end, suggesting that details are negotiated factors, and UT cannot unilaterally change procedures during mid-season and showcase independently what they prefer and exactly when to do so.

That noted, for fb at least, Mac Brown would have to have known the terms before a season starts, and at some level, had to have an appreciable level of input, as well as his own compensation, as to the acceptable conditions that would not be detrimental to the success of the fb program.
If UT was undefeated this season, I expect there would be no dissatisfaction aimed at the LHN. Is the LHN being used as an excuse for a coach feeling the pressure?

In fairness to Mac Brown, regardless of how much he is paid, there is only so much time available during the fb season he has available for telecast preparations. And, schools do not want to reveal secrets during practices for games.

Given the controversies surrounding the LHN from outside of UT, what's odd is that a prominent UT figure (their head fb coach) would deliver open criticism from the inside. It has to be pressure and a point of reference for undesired results (W-L record/rankings).

While the LHN is a lucrative deal for UT, it's blamed, rightly or not, for much, which has not ended.

SBD article also discussing Mack Brown complaints about the LHN at http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... twork.aspx

Last night, I saw an ad showing some female volleyball players, urging the viewer to call their cable operator and insist that "I want the PAC-12 Network !!!"

Here in metro St. Louis, we now get the Big Ten Network, so we can watch decades-old football games around the clock.
I imagine the SEC Network (when it happens) may show up on the same tier (due to Missouri joining SEC).
The number of folks having even a mild interest in the LHN or PAC-12 Network has to be next to none....

This article from Oregon country is precisely why I have always favored an NCAA maximum 10 member conference rule limit for membership size. http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.s ... _show.html

And this article is just one example of the issues created with unwieldy membership size which includes any conference that expanded beyond 10 schools.

Is this marvelous made for TV invention created by the SEC and sanctioned by NCAA requiring bloated conference membership really good for college sports?

We have lost century old rivalry games in football when conferences were forced by the NCAA to expand to 12 or more members. We no longer have double round robin basketball schedules which should be a legal crime for any Conference Commissioners chasing the almightily TV dollar.

When is college sports going to realize bigger is not better especially for any league with more than 10 members.

I ask again is this marvelous football champions game really worth the hassle.

The Big 12 sort of proves this point by making same for tier 1 and tier 2 rights with 10 members as the bloated Pac 12, On the other hand the Pac 12 does have this marvelous championship game and were able to grab up those fabulous football programs of Utah and Colorado in the same process.

Yes, in a more perfect world there might be 8 conferences of 10 teams each with the champion of each progressing to the quarter finals. No runners up, thank you Alabama.

Since leagues can't move backward and contract, maybe many years from now, we could get to the same arrangement with four (4) 20-school confrences, each consisting of 10-team divisions.

ACC could add a few more BE schools, the Big XII disappears and is split up between the Big Ten (adding ISU, KU, KSU, and others (I think Missouri really belongs in that group))
and the SEC (WV, Texas and OK schools), and the PAC could move Utah, and Colorado into a Mountain Division with SDSU, Boise St., BYU, and 5 other schools from the MWC.

But this has probably been proposed numerous times on our "dream conferences" thread....

Expansion isn't the problem. Look at Oregon's schedule and tell me that Tennessee Tech and Arkansas State should appear on a national championship season. Look at a league with two divisions and CCG and explain why the nine-game conference slate is still necessary. Explain to me why PAC members 9-12 are in the same division.

The only raspberries the PAC expansion gets from me is Utah over BYU. The Utes lost my support the moment they decapitated the Holy War.

I get your point, but I think it might be a flawed logic. Alabama is #1, yet they had a OOC schedule with WKU, Florida Atlantic and Western Carolina. Yes, Michigan as an opener was great and we all should credit a school for putting such a tough OOC game on the schedule. But it's still only 1 game that is a positive, offset with 2 games that are laughable, and 1 that should not even be permitted. You can put me in the camp that believes FBS schools should be required to play 100% of their opponents from within FBS in order to qualify for a national title.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Not tough enough, Matt. Aren't New Mexico, FIU and Tulane all FBS members?

Savannah State, one of the most struggling programs in FCS, played Okla. State & Fla. State this year. Of course the game with FSU was a late replacement due to the cancellation by WVU as they committed to the B12.
In terms of credits per wins for each season to count for bowl eligibility, playing one FCS school can count.
Temple, this year, never got a 12th game scheduled with anyone.

I'd rather see a system revision that reduces overall scholarship awards for FBS schools and "up" the scholarship limits for a group of FCS schools. Rather than have some 90/63 divide, settle for "75 all". That would weed away a big chunk of FCS participants. Schools such as Alabama, USC, ND, & Ohio Sate would not be able to hoard as many 4 & 5 star athletes. A more level playing field would ultimately happen. The "75" limit could be coupled with other criteria; stadium size, authenticated gate attendance figures, designated conference membership, etc. All opponents must be at the 75 designation, and no FBS/FCS distinctions for this purpose. Those FCS schools wanting to shoot for 75, would no longer be in the former FCS play-off pool, which would operate on even an higher limit of scholarships, maybe 50 or below. It reduces the pressure and finances on those schools that cannot keep up or qualify for the higher level. If at "75", none of those schools may schedule anybody below that without a pre-approved exemption---such as no opponent is available to finish out a 12 game regular schedule; or a particular school is in official "transition" upwards or downwards.

Current FCS schools need those money games to help stay afloat, in part to pay for scholarship awards. Some FBS schools are trying to help out some FCS in-state/regional programs perhaps in part due to politics and fan appeal.

Agree with the point about discouraging FBS schools from scheduling an excessive number of cupcakes. Tighten the screws with this, and diminish the pool of cupcakes.

I do not blame Alabama or the SEC for that matter for bloated leagues and point the blame much more on the NCAA for allowing college conferences to be in the situation they are today.

Just think what if the NCAA making rules of requiring 6 and latter 8 school minimum membership for division 1 conferences would have completed the other side of the rule and required a maximum size of 10 member limits.

What if the NCAA required the old Big East to have limits of 10 members. Hey Syracuse, Boston College, Pitt, and latter Miami as number 10th school, you want football then breakaway and form an all sports league.

A yes Big Ten, you want Penn State as a 11 member, you have to shed a school maybe Northwestern? I did not think so! Sorry Penn State you need to go join your eastern schools that need to form an all sports league and are currently in a hybrid mess called Big East something!.

Oh by the way SEC if you want Arkansas, you are going to have to make the same sacrifice that would have been required by the Big Ten to get Penn State and shed either Vanderbilt or Mississippi State. Yea I did not think so!

Hey SWC you got life.

Oh Big 8 you got life too and Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri you each are not orphans in a far off league. Big 8 if you want 9 or 10 schools, upcoming Louisville is available and wanting to move up to big boy league.

SWC if you want 10 members, Tulane is waiting for the call as well.

Pac 10 you are required to be in your old form so everything is good here. We would have avoided this bloated mess called the Pac 12.

And of course the WAC would not have been able to morph into the old WAC 16, and latter back to 8, and finally oblivion.

Thanks again NCAA for all the help you provide to college sports. How could we true college sports fans ever leave without you?

True enough. I guess what I was trying to say was that while yes, Oregon hasn't loaded up on a schedule this year of tough OOC schools like a caliber of Michigan, they do have all FBS schools on their schedule. Sure, people will want to make the argument that the SEC is tougher than the Pac-12 and it's true. But Oregon has/had 5 conference games against ranked schools this year...Pac-12 is solid enough at the top. For Oregon, the AP puts them as the 2nd best school. The coaches put them as the #2 school a well. But the computers put Oregon at #4.


But as others have said, this is a thread about the Big 12...and I have nothing to add that would make it related to the Big 12, so lets just find a way to discuss this in some other thread...my bad

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Tennessee Tech is not FBS, and Fresno State is no Michigan. I think the PAC is better this year than its been in some time, but it's still no SEC. And the computers know it.

I don't think the argument is much different for the Big XII. Even with round-robin, the pressure is on for Big XII schools to fill their non-conference with some sort of top conference performer. Hey, Kansas may be the only school in the conference with less than 5 wins by season's end...doesn't mean ALL of the 5+ winners are good.

The odd part of this is that Oregon originally had Kansas State on their schedule.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/21 ... s-20121022

Tennessee Tech was the fallback.

The story around here HAS been that Kansas State cancelled... there's been some question about whether it was more mutual than that. We may never know.