All the Coaches will be giving a preview of their teams for this year live on the internet July 29th.
http://www.smumustangs.com/news/news_re ... sp?id=3939
WAC Media Day on Internet
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
WAC Media Day on Internet
by PK » Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:38 am
-
PK 
- Posts: 8805
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas 75206
by KnuckleStang » Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:01 pm
That is very good news. Speaking of webcasts, wasn't there some talk last season of the athletic dept. broadcasting home football and b-ball games on a subscription basis? If I recall correctly, I believe Diehard Pony was the purveyor of "inside info" about that. Anybody know how that's coming along, if at all?
-
KnuckleStang 
- Posts: 2605
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 4:01 am
- Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
by Diehard Pony » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:46 pm
Knuckle, I have your answer, and it is not the one we all wanted to hear.
Here's the scoop. We (yes, we, myself and a partner were part of the process) were well on our way to getting it accomplished for this year. It was all being done on the assumption that SMU owned the rights to put their games on the Web. SMU thought they did, and based on the fact that several other programs already stream (Rice, Hawaii, etc) that further supported the case. We went so far as to convert the Spring game into a Windows Media 9 format and streamed it for everyone in the athletic department to see. Jim Copeland saw and liked it.
Before we got completely done and live, I called the WAC Commissioners office and spoke with the Associate Commissioner in Charge of Broadcasting and he gave me the bad news. He told me that the Internet was specifically precluded in their TV contract with ESPN as it was deemed to be both national and international distribution of the game which ESPN owns, and they will not waiver from that. He went on to tell me that Hawaii had asked him to approach ESPN about streaming on a pay-per-view basis only in the Pacific Rim (not the Americas). ESPN said NO.
Now what is really ludicrous about this is that ESPN is planning on televising a grand total of 6 WAC games this year out of the 144 that will be played, and yet all the teams are precluded from turning to another provider (such as the Internet). All conferences sign the same contract with ESPN, but it works a lot different with the Southeastern Conference, for example, where they will televise a large number of games on either ESPN or ESPN2, and sell many more on a pay-per-view basis.
The Justice Department started an investigation around these ESPN contracts in late June because of situations like the WAC, Conference USA, the Mountain West, and all the other mid-tier conferences on the basis that ESPN is essentially a cartel. I am keeping a close on those proceedings.
One final slap in the face on this subject, none of the planned 6 telecasts by ESPN involve SMU.
P.S. Rice, Hawaii and the handful of others that are streaming are doing so in violation of the contract as long as it remains enforceable.
Here's the scoop. We (yes, we, myself and a partner were part of the process) were well on our way to getting it accomplished for this year. It was all being done on the assumption that SMU owned the rights to put their games on the Web. SMU thought they did, and based on the fact that several other programs already stream (Rice, Hawaii, etc) that further supported the case. We went so far as to convert the Spring game into a Windows Media 9 format and streamed it for everyone in the athletic department to see. Jim Copeland saw and liked it.
Before we got completely done and live, I called the WAC Commissioners office and spoke with the Associate Commissioner in Charge of Broadcasting and he gave me the bad news. He told me that the Internet was specifically precluded in their TV contract with ESPN as it was deemed to be both national and international distribution of the game which ESPN owns, and they will not waiver from that. He went on to tell me that Hawaii had asked him to approach ESPN about streaming on a pay-per-view basis only in the Pacific Rim (not the Americas). ESPN said NO.
Now what is really ludicrous about this is that ESPN is planning on televising a grand total of 6 WAC games this year out of the 144 that will be played, and yet all the teams are precluded from turning to another provider (such as the Internet). All conferences sign the same contract with ESPN, but it works a lot different with the Southeastern Conference, for example, where they will televise a large number of games on either ESPN or ESPN2, and sell many more on a pay-per-view basis.
The Justice Department started an investigation around these ESPN contracts in late June because of situations like the WAC, Conference USA, the Mountain West, and all the other mid-tier conferences on the basis that ESPN is essentially a cartel. I am keeping a close on those proceedings.
One final slap in the face on this subject, none of the planned 6 telecasts by ESPN involve SMU.
P.S. Rice, Hawaii and the handful of others that are streaming are doing so in violation of the contract as long as it remains enforceable.
-
Diehard Pony 
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
by KnuckleStang » Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:04 pm
Diehard, that might be the sorriest thing I've ever heard. But, I guess if it's in the contract, there's not a whole lot we can do (unless we care to thumb our nose at ESPN, like those outlaw mavericks over at Rice).
That said, your efforts are much appreciated. I think we can all agree that Diehard Pony is a man who lives by the immortal words of Forrest Gregg: "Ask not what your Mustangs can do for YOU; ask what YOU can do for your MUSTANGS." (I don't think he ever actually said that, but if he had, he's probably the only coach who could have pulled it off, and it would have sounded cool.)
Until somebody breaks up the "cartel," us outoftowners will settle for good ol' Rich Phillips and The Hitman from Quitman. And that's fine by me. Thanks again for your efforts.
That said, your efforts are much appreciated. I think we can all agree that Diehard Pony is a man who lives by the immortal words of Forrest Gregg: "Ask not what your Mustangs can do for YOU; ask what YOU can do for your MUSTANGS." (I don't think he ever actually said that, but if he had, he's probably the only coach who could have pulled it off, and it would have sounded cool.)
Until somebody breaks up the "cartel," us outoftowners will settle for good ol' Rich Phillips and The Hitman from Quitman. And that's fine by me. Thanks again for your efforts.
-
KnuckleStang - Posts: 2605
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 4:01 am
- Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
by Johnny Rock » Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:13 pm
Espn is not SMU's enemy. TCU is not SMU's enemy. The Big 12 Conference is not SMU's enemy. SMU is SMU's enemy. I am sick and tired of you people always finding excuses and things that are not fair and making inferences that it is why SMU cannot compete in football or basketball. When will you fools learn?
- Johnny Rock
Re:
by Diehard Pony » Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:02 pm
Johnny Rock wrote:Espn is not SMU's enemy. TCU is not SMU's enemy. The Big 12 Conference is not SMU's enemy. SMU is SMU's enemy. I am sick and tired of you people always finding excuses and things that are not fair and making inferences that it is why SMU cannot compete in football or basketball. When will you fools learn?
Johnny, I am not sure I understand your post relative to this subject. I certainly do with regards to many other aspects of the program.
-
Diehard Pony - Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests