I agree with the rejection of the early signing period for now. Too many variables that have to be researched. There is always next year. One problem I see for the players like in B-bal are the numerous coaching changes throughout the year in college football. Kids would be signing and stuck with coaches they have never heard of etc or have to sit out a year if they decide to transfer...
I disagree. CBS and the ESPN's would still get the first pick at games so this network basically replaces Lincoln Financial. The Big 10 network (and the potential SEC Net) is national as apposed to Lincoln Financial which is regional. I get the Big 10 Network in Dallas so I had access to all of their 3rd tier games that I would have never been able to get before. I would love to get a potential SEC Network because I can't get any of the LF games here.
Well, that very issue was discussed by the media and Big10 officials many times last year and they noted that distribution was a major concern and the SEC is being cautious about those same problems.
When the SEC discussed growing to 16 teams...FSU, Miami, Texas, and Texas A&M were the teams being considered. I don't believe Miami and FSU wanted anything to do with the SEC and chose to move in another direction. If I recall correctly, Texas and Texas A&M were interested but were handcuffed by the state of Texas. Once the writing was on the wall that things needed to change they moved to the expanded Big 8. Husker Ed...are you happy with their inclusion? It helped the Big 8 but has cost Nebraska.
I have mixed feelings on the subject. It's obviously a plus from a revenue side as well as recruiting. Then again, Nebraska always recruited well in TX, even before the Big 12. Since the start of the Conference, there has been a power struggle between Texas and Nebraska over almost every major decision. Early on I think Texas was given too many concessions. I don't think the Big 12 has hurt the Huskers at all. It has definitely helped in Baseball. Since the inception of the Big 12, Husker Baseball has made a regional 9 of the last 10 years, including two CWS appearances. As for football we won a :crystal: as a member of the Big 12 and played for another. Nebraska's problems recently were self inflicted by an AD that wanted to change tradition. Then he brought in the wrong coach. Hopefully Pelini can help turn that around.
Well the chances of me getting the SEC network are better than LF. Plus it's not just for football so I could potentially see more basketball and baseball games too. I understand the caution in regards to distribution at first but you have to start somewhere. I think it's definitely a step in the right direction.
I agree that for some it will be easier depending on what provider you have but I am pointing out the controversy that followed for many fans not being able to see their team play on Saturdays. Many missed the undefeated Ohio State vs 7-2 Wisconsin game and UM fans only were able to see half of their games last year. There will be battles with Comcast and other networks that will most likely carry through the 1st season and beyond like the NFL Network. Last year, AP voters were aasked about the lack of Big 10 teams in the top 25 at one point during the year and because they could not see these games that would usually be broadcasted on ESPN, ABC, CBS, etc.. they said they did not have the opportunity to see them play. I am for the SEC Network because I will go out and pay for anyway possible to get the games I need to see. From the looks of it LSU games will not be much of a problem with all the national broadcast we had the past few years but what about the other lower-tier SEC teams and people who are stuck with the current cable provider monopoly. That is why I would like to see the network deals worked out prior to the release so that the overall exposure that the SEC has thrived on over the years does not suffer. There are ways to do this so the exposure increases overall for the SEC and I think anything less would be damaging in more ways unseen for the time being. One big positive mentioned a year ago was that the general fan would be able to watch more games from other non-football sports like Basketball, Softball, track and field, etc... Here is a rant by a UM columnist that point out a few of the problems they Network caused I mentioned and I have seen many other similar rants: How Big Cable and the Big Ten Network Ruined College Football Detroit Sports Unleashed
I view it from the opposite perspective, I think the idea that Texas and/or Texas A&M would NOT break away from the Big 12 to join the SEC is preposterous. Granted, one could research this issue significantly and find great arguments both pro and con Texas and/or Texas A&M joining the SEC. However, I think that you are afraid that having Texas and/or Texas A&M in the SEC would make Auburn's national reputation weaker. I've seen LSU fans who believe having Texas and/or Texas A&M would make LSU's national reputation weaker. I'm positive great arguments could be made regarding the pros and cons of these issues as well, but I still believe that LSU would benefit by having Texas and/or Texas A&M as part of the SEC. As for Auburn, I don't know. Auburn does suck overall compared to Texas and Texas A&M. Fortunately, LSU doesn't have that problem. Neither does Alabama or Arkansas.
