No Rose Bowl on Channel 12

[RLJSlick]

Always about the money, screw the fans that happen to not have ESPN:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/112186789.html

[ArgMeMatey]

Always about the money, screw the fans that happen to not have ESPN ...

You are correct.  

If Hearst offered ESPN some cash, maybe ESPN would call the NCAA and waive their exclusivity.  Of course then Time Warner, DirecTV and Dish might not appreciate their lack of exclusivity.  ESPN pays the NCAA a lot of money for these rights, and in turn ESPN demands a high price from carriers.  

Unless ESPN and their advertisers want to reach more viewers in Milwaukee, why should they care?  They're in business to make money.   And unfortunately the eyes of OTA viewers aren't worth much to them.  

Would you prefer that the FCC or some other agency step in with "must carry" or some similar rule?  

Few people in this day and age just "happen to not have ESPN".  It's a choice.  If you want to see the big game in Milwaukee, you know what you have to do.

[popegreg]

You are correct.  

If Hearst offered ESPN some cash, maybe ESPN would call the NCAA and waive their exclusivity.  Of course then Time Warner, DirecTV and Dish might not appreciate their lack of exclusivity.  ESPN pays the NCAA a lot of money for these rights, and in turn ESPN demands a high price from carriers.  

Unless ESPN and their advertisers want to reach more viewers in Milwaukee, why should they care?  They're in business to make money.   And unfortunately the eyes of OTA viewers aren't worth much to them.  

Would you prefer that the FCC or some other agency step in with "must carry" or some similar rule?  

Few people in this day and age do not just "happen to not have ESPN".  It's a choice.  If you want to see the big game in Milwaukee, you know what you have to do.

Yeah, just like our state taxes that support UW are a "choice."  This blows', no if ands or buts about it!

[popegreg]

You are correct.  

If Hearst offered ESPN some cash, maybe ESPN would call the NCAA and waive their exclusivity.  Of course then Time Warner, DirecTV and Dish might not appreciate their lack of exclusivity.  ESPN pays the NCAA a lot of money for these rights, and in turn ESPN demands a high price from carriers.  

Unless ESPN and their advertisers want to reach more viewers in Milwaukee, why should they care?  They're in business to make money.   And unfortunately the eyes of OTA viewers aren't worth much to them.  

Would you prefer that the FCC or some other agency step in with "must carry" or some similar rule?  

Few people in this day and age do not just "happen to not have ESPN".  It's a choice.  If you want to see the big game in Milwaukee, you know what you have to do.

Yeah, just like our state taxes that support UW are a "choice."  This blows, no if ands or buts about it!

[Gilbert]

I agree, a publically-funded major University that has money for TV games to be carried on it should be broadcast on OTA. But espn3.com is carrying it, so you can watch it that way.

[ArgMeMatey]

I agree, a publically-funded major University that has money for TV games to be carried on it should be broadcast on OTA. But espn3.com is carrying it, so you can watch it that way.

Is it better for football fans to pay for football, or for all taxpayers to pay more across the board?  

I'm all for ad-supported TV, and I like to have my cake and eat it too, but I'd have to guess that the NCAA, Big Ten, whomever, are run by people who look at the bottom line.  And that would be that they get more money with the exclusive ESPN deal than with an OTA option.

If a legislature or some administrative agency wanted to mandate OTA, they could probably do that for new contracts, but in that case ESPN and other bidders would simply reduce the amount they are willing to pay.  

I don't have a comprehensive understanding of college sports financing but what I recall is that income from football and other big league sports is used to subsidize the cost of mandated non-moneymaking programs.  If you take away revenue from football, you may have to increase tax subsidies to the mandated sports.