UT vs UM... not going to happen?
Texas canceled it's series with Minnesota officially this week, ending a few weeks of speculation on the subject. Despite the fact that the article is actually about UM as in Minnesota, I think there's a telling quote from the Minnesota AD regarding the conference, and future want of Texas as an opponent:
Minnesota athletics director Joel Maturi says the university is "extremely disappointed" the series won't take place. He says the video rights issue is complex and beyond its control.
Does this mean that the Big Ten has a video rights standards that Texas wouldn't agree to? Would they agree to it if the fish was a bit bigger?
Despite the fact they played Ohio State recently, that was before the Big Ten Network really solidified itself as a money maker. I'm wondering if a recent television contract put the Big Ten in an unfavorable position.
in the foot pretty shortly here. Texas is used to getting its way, getting its money, etc. This caused a conference collapse, leaving Texas with a lesser quality of opponent in its own conference. Now, for big games, it's going to have to start going out of conference more. If it keeps playing this "my way or the highway" thing, the lone star state is going to end up all alone on a schedule of FBS never-weres and FCS nobodys.
They're more flexible than many though. Home and homes with Wyoming and UCF in recent years. It doesn't matter what attendance figures they got at those two places, it couldn't have been much different than paying tomato cans at home.
At this point, Texas probably isn't very far off from earning more in TV revenue and ad revenue from a single game than they are from ticket sales. Meanwhile, the Wyomings and UCF's of the world probably don't give much care to TV rights, because they probably have a hard enough time justifying their games to the networks anyway. So if Texas says to Wyoming, "Yeah, we'll do a home and home, if we get exclusive video rights.", Wyoming is thrilled, because they get a home game with the ticket revenue and the promotion of having Texas in town, and Texas is thrilled because they'll make almost as much from the video rights as they would from gate, plus they save the actual costs associated with putting on a game at Texas Stadium.
A Big Ten, team, on the other hand, knows the value of video rights (via the Big 10 network) and won't just hand them over.
Texas (the state) has always done things its own way, UT has also followed this path. They do not seem to care. I am betting the new Longhorn network was demanding to have the video rights exclusively and the BTN said no, we share up here in the north.
excellent points. The bad thing is that even by beating low ranked OOC teams, and a weakened B12, an undefeated Texas would surely go to the NC game, if not the next best bowl game. They are taking on less risk and keeping revenue roughly the same. It's a finance guy's dream. That's what it's all about.
At first I would agree, then I thought about Auburn. Even with an undefeated season in the SEC, they didnt get a chance to play in the NCG.
I know you're a mod and all, but...dang, change the topic title.
Texas? Tennessee? UM easily suggests Michigan, not Minnesota. I, for one, could give a rat's ass whether or not Texas is playing Minnesota and wouldn't have clicked on this link.
Thanks for wasting my time, something I don't need help with. Exhibit A: this reply.
My question became, does the video rights restrict us from playing them? Hence the "?" at the end of the title. Much more meaningful than Minnesota.
I think he's being a big jerk about it, and I agree that this is an interesting topic worth covering. But he's right that the "UT v. UM" title is misleading. I would have still read it if it said "Texas v. Minn," but I definitely thought some Texas v. Michigan game had been brewing and that I was just unaware of it.
I had the misfortune of living in Minnesota for two years... Duluth in fact, where the high temp on a winter's day is -10. Just say, "there isn't a high today!"
Anyway, I had to always listen about the U of M and it tripped me up every time. I'm not sure how many people I had to berate for using U of M to talk about the University of Minnesota... I just know it was a lot.
So for future reference, I think it would please all Michigan fans if everyone in the world (special emphasis to you Minnesota and Missouri) remembered that U of M stands for The University of Michigan!
Technically should be OT as well considering its not Michigan or even Michigan football related.
But it is college football-related.
You know, it's most likely that the issue is one of dollars and cents. However, there are a couple other conspiracy angles to look at here;
(1) Texas already has a home and home with Cal-Berkeley in 2015-16. Did Texas want to get out of its other non-regional home and home because it got an edict from the conference that the Big TWELVE is going to turn into a true round robin in 2012?
(2) Is Mack Brown angling to retire before 2015, thereby making any 'gift home and home' with his former disciple Brewster moot once Muschamp takes over (this presumes Brewster makes it to 2015, which LOL).....