FOX is for and is pushing G5 expansion

[Mountaineer Steve]

So yesterday we read both FOX and ESPN are angry and BIG12 regarding expansion. Now this story says that is NOT true and FOX is not only for G5 expansion but is pushing it. So are we to think the 1st reporter didn't do a good job a checking his facts?


excerpts:
There was recently an article from the Sports Business Daily in which the authors claimed that both FOX and ESPN were "pushing back" against the Big 12 in regards to expansion. The article claimed that the two major sports networks felt that adding teams from the Group of Five would dilute the product the conference was putting out.

This could not be further from the truth.

FOX has been one of the leading proponents of Big 12 expansion over the last year as the network tries to get more college sports to air across its family of channels. This has been discussed repeatedly in the past, because FOX Sports only has the tier 1 TV rights to the Big 12 and Pac-12. Meanwhile, ESPN has tier 1 rights to the SEC, ACC, partial Big Ten, BYU, The American and many others.

ESPN has had some issues with Big 12 expansion, but that is mostly due to the targets the Big 12 wants. The league has had discussions with and about Cincinnati and Memphis for months, in addition to Houston, UConn, BYU and others. The first four schools listed are all in the American Athletic Conference, which is under contract with ESPN. BYU is also tied to ESPN through a contract to air home games in Provo. Colorado State is the only team that the Big 12 has seriously considered and isn't tied directly to ESPN.

So the truth is that yes, ESPN would like the Big 12 to avoid poaching its hottest Group of Five property - the AAC - or take away BYU, which has a buyout clause in case a Power Five comes knocking. However, FOX wants, needs and is driving this round of expansion in order to compete with ESPN and avoid continually paying its competitor for content to air

http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-continues-support-for-big-12-expansion-with-g5-teams.html

 

[Buster68_rivals]

Deja Vu... all over again.

 

[skygusty_rivals]

That was an interesting read. Can't wait to see what falls out of the tree.

 

[topdecktiger]

So yesterday we read both FOX and ESPN are angry and BIG12 regarding expansion. Now this story says that is NOT true and FOX is not only for G5 expansion but is pushing it. So are we to think the 1st reporter didn't do a good job a checking his facts?


excerpts:
There was recently an article from the Sports Business Daily in which the authors claimed that both FOX and ESPN were "pushing back" against the Big 12 in regards to expansion. The article claimed that the two major sports networks felt that adding teams from the Group of Five would dilute the product the conference was putting out.

This could not be further from the truth.

FOX has been one of the leading proponents of Big 12 expansion over the last year as the network tries to get more college sports to air across its family of channels. This has been discussed repeatedly in the past, because FOX Sports only has the tier 1 TV rights to the Big 12 and Pac-12. Meanwhile, ESPN has tier 1 rights to the SEC, ACC, partial Big Ten, BYU, The American and many others.

ESPN has had some issues with Big 12 expansion, but that is mostly due to the targets the Big 12 wants. The league has had discussions with and about Cincinnati and Memphis for months, in addition to Houston, UConn, BYU and others. The first four schools listed are all in the American Athletic Conference, which is under contract with ESPN. BYU is also tied to ESPN through a contract to air home games in Provo. Colorado State is the only team that the Big 12 has seriously considered and isn't tied directly to ESPN.

So the truth is that yes, ESPN would like the Big 12 to avoid poaching its hottest Group of Five property - the AAC - or take away BYU, which has a buyout clause in case a Power Five comes knocking. However, FOX wants, needs and is driving this round of expansion in order to compete with ESPN and avoid continually paying its competitor for content to air

http://www.bcsnn.com/big-xii/9221-fox-continues-support-for-big-12-expansion-with-g5-teams.html

Possible, but keep in mind, this author isn't using any sources or previous examples.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

That makes a lot more sense. No wonder ESPN is so bent out of shape. Expansion by the Big 12 does cheapen the conference; the AAC will lose their top teams and ESPN has their broadcast rights without FoxSports. It will certainly cheapen their product.

Fox stands to gain valuable Eastern content where now they have to buy it from ESPN to broadcast it. Oh, this is getting gooood!

 

[topdecktiger]

That makes a lot more sense. No wonder ESPN is so bent out of shape. Expansion by the Big 12 does cheapen the conference; the AAC will lose their top teams and ESPN has their broadcast rights without FoxSports. It will certainly cheapen their product.

Fox stands to gain valuable Eastern content where now they have to buy it from ESPN to broadcast it. Oh, this is getting gooood!

It actually doesn't make all that much sense. The author says Fox has been pushing for expansion for a year, yet they don't make a push at the June meetings. Bowlsby also admitted it was the ACC network announcement, not a push from Fox or ESPN, that sparked expansion.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Tiger, is that the best you can do? Pick and choose an out of context snippet of information in a weak attempt to support your anti Big 12 agenda? You read that article that makes perfect sense. Now top it off with this one and maybe the fog will lift.

It's all about economics and ESPN having to pay full value on teams they already have rights to, plus share them with Fox! And 'their' conference really does get cheapened. I'd be pissed too. Fox must be ecstatic!

 

[topdecktiger]

Tiger, is that the best you can do? Pick and choose an out of context snippet of information in a weak attempt to support your anti Big 12 agenda? You read that article that makes perfect sense. Now top it off with this one and maybe the fog will lift.

It's all about economics and ESPN having to pay full value on teams they already have rights to, plus share them with Fox! And 'their' conference really does get cheapened. I'd be pissed too. Fox must be ecstatic!

It's not a "weak" attempt at all. It's a logical evaluation of the information. I'l again remind you to call on your journalism background, rather than your emotional attachment to West Virginia. You have simply chosen to believe this author because you like what he says, pure and simple. You completely disregard what the SBJ article says, without any legitimate basis to do so. This author doesn't quote any sources, anonymous or otherwise, to back up his points. He simply says that Fox has been pushing for expansion for a year, and there have been multiple meetings. Well, you are just taking what he says at face value, and not examining it critically. Bad form for a former journalist. Again, I'll point out that this "push" from Fox for expansion didn't come to fruition just last month, at the Spring meetings. If Fox was as gung ho for expansion as this author indicates, you would expect Fox to have made a significant offer. Sorry, but looking at this objectively (as a journalist should do), you simply can't come to the conclusion that this author can be taken as gospel, and the SBJ author can be completely disregarded.

 

[Buckaineer]

The FOX article is every bit as legitimate as the unsourced SBJ article.

The same day the SBJ article came out, ESPN put out this article--which more clearly addresses the issues without the unsubstantiated threats of the SBJ article.

Boren, OU have leverage for expansion moves

Its clear that Tiger doesn't want the BIG 12 to be successful so he is here trolling anything and everything that would make it clear that the BIG 12 WILL be successful.

 

[Buckaineer]

btw commissioner Bowlsby today said this to the very anti BIG 12 Kirk Bohls--

from My Statesmen:
"Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby tells me the league is still exploring expansion but has no idea if a plan can be completed before the football season kicks off. Asked if the balking by ESPN and Fox might give the Big 12 an out and cool off the desire for expansion, Bowlsby said: “Nothing has changed. I have put no time frame on the process. I am not planning to comment on the processes until they are complete.”

 

[topdecktiger]

The FOX article is every bit as legitimate as the unsourced SBJ article.

The same day the SBJ article came out, ESPN put out this article--which more clearly addresses the issues without the unsubstantiated threats of the SBJ article.

Boren, OU have leverage for expansion moves

Its clear that Tiger doesn't want the BIG 12 to be successful so he is here trolling anything and everything that would make it clear that the BIG 12 WILL be successful.

No it's not. The guy doesn't quote any sources or give any examples.

 

[Buckaineer]

No it's not. The guy doesn't quote any sources or give any examples.

Neither does SBJ. Anonymous sources are not legitimate.

 

[topdecktiger]

Neither does SBJ. Anonymous sources are not legitimate.

1. You have posted plenty of articles that relied on anonymous sources, and you didn't have a problem with them. It's only when the sources disagree with you that you question them.

2. Under that theory, the problem is you are simply picking the article you like. If you are going to say that nether article has a source, then one is no more valid than the other. You have no objective reason to favor one over the other.

3. I already found one glaring error in this author's article. He states:

This means that the only football program east of the Mississippi under contract with FOX for tier 1 television rights is West Virginia.

Well, that's not true. Fox now has Tier 1 rights to the Big Ten, which if you check a map, has plenty of schools east of the Mississippi.

 

[Buckaineer]

1. You have posted plenty of articles that relied on anonymous sources, and you didn't have a problem with them. It's only when the sources disagree with you that you question them.

2. Under that theory, the problem is you are simply picking the article you like. If you are going to say that nether article has a source, then one is no more valid than the other. You have no objective reason to favor one over the other.

3. I already found one glaring error in this author's article. He states:

This means that the only football program east of the Mississippi under contract with FOX for tier 1 television rights is West Virginia.

Well, that's not true. Fox now has Tier 1 rights to the Big Ten, which if you check a map, has plenty of schools east of the Mississippi.

Talk about picking and choosing, you've completely ignore the better written and sourced ESPn article while clinging to the poorly sourced SBj one.

With the enormous story they are purporting its critical to have legitimate named sources. An extremely serious matter if tv executives are actually stating intentions to either ignore BIg 12 contracts, or blackmail the conference if they don't go along with that b.s.

A higher burden of proof is required but has not been provided.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

It's not a "weak" attempt at all. It's a logical evaluation of the information. I'l again remind you to call on your journalism background, rather than your emotional attachment to West Virginia. You have simply chosen to believe this author because you like what he says, pure and simple. You completely disregard what the SBJ article says, without any legitimate basis to do so. This author doesn't quote any sources, anonymous or otherwise, to back up his points. He simply says that Fox has been pushing for expansion for a year, and there have been multiple meetings. Well, you are just taking what he says at face value, and not examining it critically. Bad form for a former journalist. Again, I'll point out that this "push" from Fox for expansion didn't come to fruition just last month, at the Spring meetings. If Fox was as gung ho for expansion as this author indicates, you would expect Fox to have made a significant offer. Sorry, but looking at this objectively (as a journalist should do), you simply can't come to the conclusion that this author can be taken as gospel, and the SBJ author can be completely disregarded.

As a former author, I realize journalists can be given bad information, especially by someone with an agenda such as an unidentified broadcast source. The source was obviously someone from ESPN and may have simply said 'the broadcasters' and the writer assumed it included Fox.

Then I went to the second link I gave you and and it simply reports ESPN winning the broadcast right to nearly all AAC athletic events with CBS having a small portion. Then it all made sense. Why would Fox oppose that which enriches them and opens up the East college football media markets to them. Fox would be foolish not to quietly support Big 12 Eastern expansion.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

1. You have posted plenty of articles that relied on anonymous sources, and you didn't have a problem with them. It's only when the sources disagree with you that you question them.

2. Under that theory, the problem is you are simply picking the article you like. If you are going to say that nether article has a source, then one is no more valid than the other. You have no objective reason to favor one over the other.

3. I already found one glaring error in this author's article. He states:

This means that the only football program east of the Mississippi under contract with FOX for tier 1 television rights is West Virginia.

Well, that's not true. Fox now has Tier 1 rights to the Big Ten, which if you check a map, has plenty of schools east of the Mississippi.

Fox does not have the Big Ten for this season. Yes they do have the rights to the Big 10 starting next season. How is that for nitpicking?

Second question - do you have a life? It seems like you are on message boards 24/7.

 

[Buckaineer]

Fox does not have the Big Ten for this season. Yes they do have the rights to the Big 10 starting next season. How is that for nitpicking?

Second question - do you have a life? It seems like you are on message boards 24/7.

employee? Who knows but sure is a possibility--24/7 language detrimental to the BIG 12 screams AGENDA--possibly a paid one.

 

[topdecktiger]

Talk about picking and choosing, you've completely ignore the better written and sourced ESPn article while clinging to the poorly sourced SBj one.

With the enormous story they are purporting its critical to have legitimate named sources. An extremely serious matter if tv executives are actually stating intentions to either ignore BIg 12 contracts, or blackmail the conference if they don't go along with that b.s.

A higher burden of proof is required but has not been provided.

No, the ESPN article you posted didn't deal with the issue of Fox and ESPN resisting expansion. It simply didn't mention the issue. The only two articles that have addressed the issue are the SBJ article, and the one the OP linked.

I'll again point out, the OP's article doesn't quote any sources, anonymous or otherwise.

As a former author, I realize journalists can be given bad information, especially by someone with an agenda such as an unidentified broadcast source. The source was obviously someone from ESPN and may have simply said 'the broadcasters' and the writer assumed it included Fox.

Then I went to the second link I gave you and and it simply reports ESPN winning the broadcast right to nearly all AAC athletic events with CBS having a small portion. Then it all made sense. Why would Fox oppose that which enriches them and opens up the East college football media markets to them. Fox would be foolish not to quietly support Big 12 Eastern expansion.

As a former author, you should also realize that the OP's article has no sources. He just declares something to be true, without anything to back it up. That does not give this article more credibility over the SBJ article. It's also not "obvious" that the SBJ source was form ESPN. You are just assuming that it's true that Fox is pushing for expansion.

The second link you posted is 2 years old, and does not address the issue of Fox supporting Big 12 expansion. It adds literally nothing to the discussion. Sorry, but you are simply trying to construct a scenario that you want to see happen.

Fox does not have the Big Ten for this season. Yes they do have the rights to the Big 10 starting next season. How is that for nitpicking?

It's not nitpicking. It completely undermines the author's premise. If you want to go that route, expansion wouldn't happen until 2017 either, so Fox can't get those rights before the Big Ten contract kicks in. Face it, the author simply got a major component of his story wrong.

 

[Buckaineer]

The ESPN article I posted dealt with the negotiations happening. The article you are hanging your hat on (tiger) doesn't deal with the negotiations--just unsubstantiated threats and blackmail.

 

[topdecktiger]

The ESPN article I posted dealt with the negotiations happening. The article you are hanging your hat on (tiger) doesn't deal with the negotiations--just unsubstantiated threats and blackmail.

The ESPN article you posted doesn't mention anything actually happening in the negotiations. It just restates some things we already knew (the pro rata clause). Then it speculates on whether the Big 12 would sign a GOR, what Oklahoma might do, and which schools might be involved. It didn't mention any specifics. It doesn't state the position of ESPN and Fox on expansion. It doesn't address any of the issues brought up in this thread.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

1. You have posted plenty of articles that relied on anonymous sources, and you didn't have a problem with them. It's only when the sources disagree with you that you question them.

2. Under that theory, the problem is you are simply picking the article you like. If you are going to say that nether article has a source, then one is no more valid than the other. You have no objective reason to favor one over the other.

3. I already found one glaring error in this author's article. He states:

This means that the only football program east of the Mississippi under contract with FOX for tier 1 television rights is West Virginia.

Well, that's not true. Fox now has Tier 1 rights to the Big Ten, which if you check a map, has plenty of schools east of the Mississippi.

East of the Mississippi, Tiger? That includes the Midwest. Fox will have some rights to Maryland and Rutgers as Eastern schools to go along with WVU in 2017 with their involvement in the B1G.

You are reaching beyond your capabilities in trying to copy edit my posts for accuracy and content. I strongly believe FoxSports would love to have access to the broadcasting rights of any and all of the top four AAC teams.

That statement that makes this an editorial comment, not a news blog. I suggest that you check the 50 rules of journalism before you critique this post.

 

[MikeRafone]

Do these guys go on like this all the time?

I'm going back to the Off Topic Board where rationality and refined manners reign supreme. Adieu, Philistines!

 

[skygusty_rivals]

Do these guys on like this all the time?

I'm going back to the Off Topic Board where rationality and refined manners reign supreme. Adieu, Philistines!

Twins, separated at birth is my guess.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I have GOT to quit feeding the argumentative trolls!

 

[topdecktiger]

East of the Mississippi, Tiger? That includes the Midwest. Fox will have some rights to Maryland and Rutgers as Eastern schools to go along with WVU in 2017 with their involvement in the B1G.

You are reaching beyond your capabilities in trying to copy edit my posts for accuracy and content. I strongly believe FoxSports would love to have access to the broadcasting rights of any and all of the top four AAC teams.

That statement that makes this an editorial comment, not a news blog. I suggest that you check the 50 rules of journalism before you critique this post.

No, I'm not "reaching beyond my capabilities." You just jumped all over this article because it reinforced your desired outcome. If you were simply stating your opinion, then you would not disagree with me that, 1) the BCS blog does not include any sources for its information 2) Fox has not shown the push for expansion that the BCS blog claims 3) The BCS blog was incorrect in its premise that Fox doesn't have any schools in the eastern time zone (besides WV) under contract. If you were just expressing your opinion, then you would not disagree with any of the points they raised. If you were just expressing your opinion, then you would acknowledge that the BCS article is not a definitive source. It very well could be wrong. (As it very well could be right also.) Also, you seem to forget that I can express my opinion just as you can, and my opinion is that there is plenty to question the accuracy of the BCS article.

Here's the truth. You want expansion to happen so bad that you are trying to convince yourself it's going to happen. You ignore any evidence to the contrary. You simply want an echo chamber to reinforce your preconceived notions.

Edit: By the way, you need to get your facts straight. Here is this whole business about eastern schools, from the article:

This means that the only football program east of the Mississippi under contract with FOX for tier 1 television rights is West Virginia. FOX wants more product to air in the Eastern time zone.

The article specifically says Fox wants more schools east of the Mississippi. Ok, well the Big Ten has all but 3 schools east of the Mississippi. The article also specifically says Fox wants more product to air in the eastern time zone. Well, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana and Purdue are all in the eastern time zone. The Big Ten clearly fits the criteria listed in the article. Your attempt to act like I missed something simply doesn't hold up.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

No, I'm not "reaching beyond my capabilities." You just jumped all over this article because it reinforced your desired outcome. If you were simply stating your opinion, then you would not disagree with me that, 1) the BCS blog does not include any sources for its information 2) Fox has not shown the push for expansion that the BCS blog claims 3) The BCS blog was incorrect in its premise that Fox doesn't have any schools in the eastern time zone (besides WV) under contract. If you were just expressing your opinion, then you would not disagree with any of the points they raised. If you were just expressing your opinion, then you would acknowledge that the BCS article is not a definitive source. It very well could be wrong. (As it very well could be right also.) Also, you seem to forget that I can express my opinion just as you can, and my opinion is that there is plenty to question the accuracy of the BCS article.

Here's the truth. You want expansion to happen so bad that you are trying to convince yourself it's going to happen. You ignore any evidence to the contrary. You simply want an echo chamber to reinforce your preconceived notions.

Good for you, Tiger! Your opinion is absolutely your right. But it is a fact that Fox has no access to AAC broadcasts and ESPN does. That is a fact you can verify.

If the Big 12 is joined by any AAC schools plus BYU, and it gives Fox access to their broadcast rights. The price for broadcasting these schools goes up dramatically for ESPN and is an absolute bargain for Fox. That is an absolute fact.

You can draw your own conclusions regarding the results, but that is indisputable. Can someone please give me an 'Amen'?

 

[topdecktiger]

Good for you, Tiger! Your opinion is absolutely your right. But it is a fact that Fox has no access to AAC broadcasts and ESPN does. That is a fact you can verify.

If the Big 12 is joined by any AAC schools plus BYU, and it gives Fox access to their broadcast rights. The price for broadcasting these schools goes up dramatically for ESPN and is an absolute bargain for Fox. That is an absolute fact.

You can draw your own conclusions regarding the results, but that is indisputable. Can someone please give me an 'Amen'?

And here is the problem. None of that proves Fox is pushing for expansion. Not at all. Here is one big problem.The pro rata clause calls for roughly $500 million if the Big 12 expands by 2 teams or roughly $1 billion for expanding by 4. That means Fox itself would be on the hook for about $250/500 million of that total. By contrast, the entire AAC contract is $126 million over 7 years. That doesn't look like a bargain.

As for your "Amen," you (as a former journalist) are engaging in some massive speculation here. You're jumping to a conclusion that isn't suggested by all the evidence we have.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

Do these guys go on like this all the time?

I'm going back to the Off Topic Board where rationality and refined manners reign supreme. Adieu, Philistines!

Topdeck sticks his nose in only anything dealing with money, expansion and television. I learned to ignore him since his view is ACC centric.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers_rivals]

It actually doesn't make all that much sense. The author says Fox has been pushing for expansion for a year, yet they don't make a push at the June meetings. Bowlsby also admitted it was the ACC network announcement, not a push from Fox or ESPN, that sparked expansion.

Who the hell knows what is driving any of this, or where it will lead. There are those who say they know and those who don't know. And both know about as much as we do about it. I'll just enjoy Oklahoma coming to Mountaineer Field this year. We used to wet our pants when WVU got to play the Sooners every 5 to 10 years. Now we play them every year. That's living in high cotton to me. I'll just enjoy the 2016 season, particularly if WVU finishes in the top half of the Big 12, and let everything else sweat the rest.