Official College Football Thread

[Chisoxfn]

f***...this is horrid for Iowa. We are supposed to have good guys and not have this type of problems.

[whitesoxfan101]

f***...this is horrid for Iowa. We are supposed to have good guys and not have this type of problems.

 

To be honest, my post probably came across the wrong way. I just hate when everybody says how great and clean a program Iowa has, when in reality, it's not. It's nothing against Ferentz or Iowa, because their program is no worse than everybody else, but it's no better either.

 

BTW, rumor has it more guys might be in trouble and such info may be coming out soon. We'll see, but photos like the ones in this thread aren't exactly good to see from Iowa's point of view:

 

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=8&F=137...76&t=865239

 

I'm not sure who James Cleveland is, but I'd assume he's one of the guys the rumors I've heard involve.

 

EDIT: He's a RS Freshman WR from Drew Tate's homeland of Baytown, Texas. Looks like these Iowa WR's stick together, eh? They might have all walk on's at WR September 1st at this rate.

Edited August 21, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Yeah, underage drinking in general isn't exactly anything to write home about, as long as he wasn't driving. 99 percent of college kids do this, just so happened he got caught. Claussen is a dummie though, you never go WITH the person buying the alcohol for you, duh.

 

What sucks is they got in trouble for Natural light.

[IlliniKrush]

Come on BTN and Comcast, get a GD deal done, and now. I'm sick of reading so much garbage both ways about it. This would be a travesty if BTN isn't on Comcast through football and perhaps basketball season. I can't believe this is even a possibility.

Edited August 21, 2007 by IlliniKrush

[Brian]

Come on BTN and Comcast, get a GD deal done, and now. I'm sick of reading so much garbage both ways about it. This would be a travesty if BTN isn't on Comcast through football and perhaps basketball season. I can't believe this is even a possibility.

 

Agreed. Comcast is a huge part of the midwest and Big ten country, outside a few areas. It would be disastrous if this fell through.

[greasywheels121]

Agreed. Comcast is a huge part of the midwest and Big ten country, outside a few areas. It would be disastrous if this fell through.

 

As much as I want to see this channel, the Big Ten is full of itself. The NFL is definitely the biggest thing in sports in the US, and they can't even make the basic package on Comcast, etc. with the NFL Network.

 

I would love for this thing to be on a basic package, since that's where all the non-national games went anyways. Plus, it'd be a cheaper thing for all of us; however, that's not just realistic. The Big Ten's going to have to give a little more than Comcast does on this. And I hope they do fast, with football kicking off next weekend.

[ZoomSlowik]

We've got DirecTV, doesn't bother me.

[greasywheels121]

We've got DirecTV, doesn't bother me.

 

Haha, I really have no desire to switch, but I might have to eventually. We have Insight here in Bloomington, which is being taken over by Comcast on January 1.

 

I just want this issue to be conceded somehow/somewhere.

 

Both sides are being babies about this whole thing:

 

The Big Ten claiming this isn't about money, and thinking they're bigger than the NFL etc.

 

Comcast for thinking channels like QVC and the Home and Garden Network are more important entities to our basic cable package. Also, the stupid fan messages they've been posting on Big Ten message boards is quite ridiculous.

 

---

 

The good thing is campus cable at IU has agreed to pick it up, so for all away games that are on the BTN, we're going to our office in AH.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Would that big ten network cause any sort of price change for the basic cable package? If so, it has no business being on the basic cable package...

[IlliniKrush]

Would that big ten network cause any sort of price change for the basic cable package? If so, it has no business being on the basic cable package...

My understanding is that it would.

 

Greasy is right in his analysis. We all pay for stuff we don't want in that package, but that's how we get a wide array of channels. I personally think the BTN should be on the basic/extended cable package because I believe demand will be high especially come bball season. But Comcast's main argument is flawed, they keep saying that consumers who have no interest in the BTN shouldn't have to pay for it. But if I have to pay 7 bucks or whatever for a sports package, I may have zero interest in the NFL network and whatever else is on there and shouldn't have to pay for that.

 

There has to be some middle ground for them to settle on, such as put it on basic cable but for a lower cost than the BTN wants - something comparable to other channels not named ESPN. PPV for games or even just paying for the channel itself would be decent for the customer if nothing else can happen but bad for business on both ends I would imagine.

 

Also, comcast has ch 255 'reserved' for the BTN, and it has a message about the fan first website on there. There is also a half hour comcast propaganda round table discussion on the BTN on On Demand, local, comcast 100.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

But Comcast's main argument is flawed, they keep saying that consumers who have no interest in the BTN shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

I agree 100% with that argument.

 

Cable prices are way too high already to begin with (another major gripe for me, and I'm actually looking into other services). A counter-argument someone mentioned on here is that we're paying for stuff like that home shopping network that many of us don't watch, but I bet those ratings would blow away whatever a big ten networking showing fringe games would get. It seems that comcast does not want to put it on a basic cable package because it would not generate the viewership necessary for it to make sense for the price, and I think that makes sense. Yes, there is a large contingent of big 11 fans in the Chicago area, but probably nowhere near as much as some of you may think. If the NFL is considered niche, big 11 should obviously be too...by far.

 

But if they were to get rid of a crappy channel or two that nobody watches to add it and not change the price, I wouldn't care.

[IlliniKrush]

I agree 100% with that argument.

 

Cable prices are way too high already to begin with (another major gripe for me, and I'm actually looking into other services). A counter-argument someone mentioned on here is that we're paying for stuff like that home shopping network that many of us don't watch, but I bet those ratings would blow away whatever a big ten networking showing fringe games would get. It seems that comcast does not want to put it on a basic cable package because it would not generate the viewership necessary for it to make sense for the price, and I think that makes sense. Yes, there is a large contingent of big 11 fans in the Chicago area, but probably nowhere near as much as some of you may think. If the NFL is considered niche, big 11 should obviously be too...by far.

 

But if they were to get rid of a crappy channel or two that nobody watches to add it and not change the price, I wouldn't care.

The NFL isn't considered a niche, but the NFL Network is. If a ton of NFL games were on the NFL Network, I'd bet it wouldn't be in a sports package.

 

Also, I'll take your bet. Standard home shopping network programming vs Illinois/Wisconsin basketball in February. Please. If BTN brings the price down, in my opinion the viewership would be enough to validate putting it on basic cable.

 

If they want to simply use the argument that 'non fans' shouldn't have to pay for it, then every one of us should be able to customize our cable package. I could live on about 20 channels. Furthermore, why should 'fans' have to pay much extra for channels in a sports package they don't want? These things go both ways.

Edited August 21, 2007 by IlliniKrush

[CanOfCorn]

The NFL isn't considered a niche, but the NFL Network is. If a ton of NFL games were on the NFL Network, I'd bet it wouldn't be in a sports package.

 

Also, I'll take your bet. Standard home shopping network programming vs Illinois/Wisconsin basketball in February. Please. If BTN brings the price down, in my opinion the viewership would be enough to validate putting it on basic cable.

 

If they want to simply use the argument that 'non fans' shouldn't have to pay for it, then every one of us should be able to customize our cable package. I could live on about 20 channels. Furthermore, why should 'fans' have to pay much extra for channels in a sports package they don't want? These things go both ways.

 

I think he's talking about the big Penn State/Northwestern basketball tussles. Or Minnesota-Indiana in football. Not that either of those games won't have fans...but those will balance out the big time matchups.

[Heads22]

f***...this is horrid for Iowa. We are supposed to have good guys and not have this type of problems.

 

 

Des Moines Register Sports Headlines:

 

Barta: 'Photos appear to be some of our student-athletes'

Iowa athletic director Gary Barta said Internet photos of men holding large amounts of cash and liquor bottles is being investigated after suspensions of two football players. Barta says UI talks with athletes about concerns related to social networking sites.

10 Comments

 

Two Iowa receivers arrested, suspended

 

Police: Iowa backup QB to take care of arrest warrant 'by tomorrow morning'

 

more headlines

 

 

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I think he's talking about the big Penn State/Northwestern basketball tussles. Or Minnesota-Indiana in football. Not that either of those games won't have fans...but those will balance out the big time matchups.

 

That's exactly what I meant. And to my understanding, the overwhelming majority of premium games won't be on that network anyways, no? That's what I meant by fringe games.

 

I'd take that bet of those home shopping channels having higher ratings than whatever programming that big 11 channel is gonna come up with when not featuring what would basically be considered lower-tiered games. And it'll also be about 6 non-football and basketball months of sports with very minimal interest along with that programming.

 

Honestly though, is it a channel that even the most die-hard big 10 fans will be watching much of outside of a few games? How many people are really interested in big 10 men's volleyball and softball??

[Chisoxfn]

I agree 100% with that argument.

 

Cable prices are way too high already to begin with (another major gripe for me, and I'm actually looking into other services). A counter-argument someone mentioned on here is that we're paying for stuff like that home shopping network that many of us don't watch, but I bet those ratings would blow away whatever a big ten networking showing fringe games would get. It seems that comcast does not want to put it on a basic cable package because it would not generate the viewership necessary for it to make sense for the price, and I think that makes sense. Yes, there is a large contingent of big 11 fans in the Chicago area, but probably nowhere near as much as some of you may think. If the NFL is considered niche, big 11 should obviously be too...by far.

 

But if they were to get rid of a crappy channel or two that nobody watches to add it and not change the price, I wouldn't care.

I don't know how anyone thinks Satelite is cheaper than cable. DirectTv would have assloads of upfront costs, s***ty equipment, and there monthly service fees really aren't much different (the big thing is the equipment costs are exorbitant via DirectTV).

 

I could see Satelitte being cheaper if you just want the basic basic (no HD, no dvr, no anything and pretty much one tv hookup) but anything other than that and DirectTv quickly gets exponentially more expensive than cable (and its HD service doesn't touch my Cox HD service...that could change whenever they expand and get that new dish up).

[ZoomSlowik]

I don't know how anyone thinks Satelite is cheaper than cable. DirectTv would have assloads of upfront costs, s***ty equipment, and there monthly service fees really aren't much different (the big thing is the equipment costs are exorbitant via DirectTV).

 

I could see Satelitte being cheaper if you just want the basic basic (no HD, no dvr, no anything and pretty much one tv hookup) but anything other than that and DirectTv quickly gets exponentially more expensive than cable (and its HD service doesn't touch my Cox HD service...that could change whenever they expand and get that new dish up).

 

It all adds up. Like you said, it's not too bad for a one line, regular subscription, no-HD setup, but everything gets added on.

 

Still, even with our setup, which is 3 sets, 4 lines, 2 Tivo's and the Sportspack it's only like $5-$10 more than we were paying for our old basic cable with no DVR (don't remember the exact total), and the quality is better too.

 

Plus they often run deals where you can get something free, whether it's installation, the dish, a Tivo, or whatever...

 

[whitesoxfan101]

Still, even with our setup, which is 3 sets, 4 lines, 2 Tivo's and the Sportspack it's only like $5-$10 more than we were paying for our old basic cable with no DVR (don't remember the exact total), and the quality is better too.

 

Plus they often run deals where you can get something free, whether it's installation, the dish, a Tivo, or whatever...

 

Same situation at my house. The idea that cable saves so much money in any form over DirecTV is a cute myth, but a myth indeed. And plus you can the option of all the sports packages with the dish and get ESPNU, NFL Network, Big Ten Network, etc. Not to mention, the "bad weather messing up the dish" thing is greatly overhyped. Our dish doesn't get interference from bad weather often at all, and when it does, it's only for 5 or 10 minutes during the worst of a bad storm.

[greasywheels121]

http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/2007/0...release-on.html

[Jenksismyhero]

That's exactly what I meant. And to my understanding, the overwhelming majority of premium games won't be on that network anyways, no? That's what I meant by fringe games.

 

I'd take that bet of those home shopping channels having higher ratings than whatever programming that big 11 channel is gonna come up with when not featuring what would basically be considered lower-tiered games. And it'll also be about 6 non-football and basketball months of sports with very minimal interest along with that programming.

 

Honestly though, is it a channel that even the most die-hard big 10 fans will be watching much of outside of a few games? How many people are really interested in big 10 men's volleyball and softball??

 

 

I would actually argue that the BTN can pull in huge numbers overall, but maybe not everyday, more so than the NFL network. Think about it this way, every saturday in the fall there would be like 6-7 big ten football games right? Two or three of those are going to be on ESPN, ESPN2 or ABC (w/ the occasional NBC with ND). The rest go to the espn+ which the BTN will pick up. If Ohio State or Michigan can pull 80-90k people just into their stadiums, how many people are watching at home? How many of those people would watch Ohio State beat up on Troy or Michigan beat up on Central Michigan (which usually aren't televised on the major networks)? A lot. Hundreds of thousands. And that's just two teams. The middle to lower big ten teams have huge followings. Illinois and Indiana get big time viewership, as does Purdue and Wisky, and they're only on big networks 3-4 times a year. And that's just football. Bring in basketball and you're talking about decent games 3-4 nights a week.

 

The BTN would pull in huge #'s with it's football and basketball coverage. Even if they fill the rest of the week with non-popular events like volleyball and track and field, the week will still have great audience numbers. More so than the NFL network IMO and well worth the cost for comcast and rcn (my cable) to pick it up.

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

Same situation at my house. The idea that cable saves so much money in any form over DirecTV is a cute myth, but a myth indeed. And plus you can the option of all the sports packages with the dish and get ESPNU, NFL Network, Big Ten Network, etc. Not to mention, the "bad weather messing up the dish" thing is greatly overhyped. Our dish doesn't get interference from bad weather often at all, and when it does, it's only for 5 or 10 minutes during the worst of a bad storm.

For the sake of debate....we have 3 HD DVR boxes at my house (for cable we just pay 6.95 a month and it covers the receiver and dvr)....if we had DirectTv we would have the fee just to have access to the box (which is pretty much 6.95 a month as well) plus having to purchease HD DVR box (as there is no way to get them for free) for $200 bucks a piece (that right there is a $600 out of pocket cost).

 

In terms of channels, our package pricing is pretty much the exact same (plus we have 2 tv's that don't have boxes, but get all the cable channels, aside from digital channels) and if we wanted that with DirectTv we would need to get boxes (which I think you can manage to get for free after rebate)

[whitesoxfan101]

No your 110 percent right, my comments were based on a house like mine that does not have HDTV anything on any of the TV's. If you have 1 or more HDTV style sets, the pricing situation is way different.

[Soxbadger]

I dont even care what package they put it on, just go out and get it done RCN. I already am paying for the highest cable package possible, so I think its bogus that I cant just have my Big 10 channel. If I have to pay for an alternative lifestyle music channel, I deserve a Big 10 channel.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Soxbadger

[ZoomSlowik]

I think HD is another $5 per set per month or something like that, plus obviously the different dish and receivers. I don't remember the pricing on those, but I'm sure it's a pain.

[Heads22]

Sounds like Mediacom and B10Network reached a deal.