Originally posted by Stallion:
Without a real Commitment from the private schools, I see probably by the next round of TV Contracts SMU stuck in a league with Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Navy, Army and maybe Temple without a TV Contract, without a bowl connection and likely circling the drain of Division 1A.
I wouldn't worry about not having a TV deal…
By 2015, VOD will have modified all Networks need for software. If the BCS conferences’ greed continues, it is likely they will be launching their own channels (not just for sports), and all the pro sports will have taken their packages away from ESPN and Turner by running their leagues' national cable package on their own channel (a solid distribution strategy).
CSTV will have distribution around 65M by then. Add in ESPN, ESPN 2, Fox Sports Network, Jefferson Pilot and other independents... if anything, the smaller conferences will have more opportunity because of a fragmented hardware, limited software, and VOD. It is more probable that SMU, and all schools, would have all games televised and accessible coast-to-coast by 2015-2020, rather than your suggestion.
By the next contracts Stallion, obscure Division 1AA games will be more accessible to viewers than the Mountain West or CUSA games are today. We have nothing to worry about in terms of TV exposure or revenues.
Also, I spoke with a Board member recently at a conference, and he insisted that there is a faction of University leadership that is pushing for the steady elimination of the recruiting restrictions put on the athletic program in 1988. As you know, the first step was the elimination of the visitation rule; next will be full access to JC players; then will come the ability to red tag (I think you would agree this is the most important). It’s not going to happen tomorrow, but “by 2010 the University will be on the same level as a Vanderbilt or Duke†- was how he put it. Maybe a 0-12 season will expatiate the need for change, although he also made sure to point out that academic concerns will always come first.
Also, he shared that there are Board members who are concerned about the University’s academic reputation (which isn’t as strong outside Texas) and might not go for the reductions. A major concern is red tagging would further magnify the Universities 77% acceptance ratio, which is incredibly damaging for the University in ranking guides. Personally, I think that is more of a ‘pay expensive tuition to attend a small school in middle America’ predicament, but the concern is there nonetheless.
If anything, I would call those who monotonously complain on the Internet, to voice your opinion through Gerald Turner’s office (via his assistant Mary who screens all email)
[email protected] … mind you, aggressive blathering will never get your message heard.