Will NCAA Regulations Allow Texas To Air High School Football Games On Their Longhorn Network?
Texas just doesn't know when to stop. Mack Brown is dead set on world domination! First, they want to control the BigXII all by themselves. Then, they want to construct their own TV network, The Longhorn Network! The Longhorn Network is a Texas-only network, similar to the Big Ten Network, constructed in a massive deal with ESPN:
Last summer we learned that the University of Texas was ready to launch a cable channel dedicated exclusively to all things Longhorn, and by January it reached a 20-year, $300 million deal with ESPN to help develop, launch, and operate the Longhorn Network
Dominating their conference ain't enough, though! Now, they want to dominate the high school market. They want to show us the power of a fully functional Longhorn network by showing high school football games. However, other schools complained that this would be a recruiting advantage. Big XII commissioner Don Beebe put those plans on hiatus:
Commissioner Dan Beebe announced a temporary compromise Wednesday. Telecasts of high school football games on the Longhorn Network are now on hold, pending decisions by the NCAA and the Big 12 about how to handle school and conference networks. The Big 12 also delayed the possibility of a conference game on the Longhorn Network, announced earlier this month as part of a side deal with Fox.
So, while we wait for the NCAA to investigate, everything grinds to a halt, right? Wrong. Texas has already signed high school teams to contracts:
Officials with Brenham's athletic department confirm they signed a contract with the Longhorn Network early last week, allowing them to broadcast the Cubs' game on September 1st at 7p.m.
Now, it is a little unclear to me, the timing of the situation here. Did Texas sign this contract with the high school before or after Beebe offered this "compromise"? Either way, contracts have been signed to air high school games, so this is not just pie in the sky thinking on Texas' part. They want those delicious pies out of the sky immediately!
But will NCAA regulations allow this? Will Texas be allowed to destroy the BigXII due to its avaricious actions! After the jump, let's take a closer look at the NCAA by-laws that relate to this sticky issue.
The first NCAA bylaw to look at is 13.10.3. Here is the NCAA publication manual (caution: pdf):
13.10.3 radio/Tv show. A member institution shall not permit a prospective student-athlete or a high school,
college preparatory school or two-year college coach to appear, be interviewed or otherwise be
involved (in person or via film, audio tape or videotape) on:
(a) A radio or television program conducted by the institution’s coach;
(b) A program in which the institution’s coach is participating; or
(c) A program for which a member of the institution’s athletics staff has been instrumental in arranging for the
appearance of the prospective student-athlete or coach or related program material.
13.10.3.1 Effect of Violation. Violations of Bylaw 13.10.3 shall be considered institutional violations per
Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the prospective student-athlete’s eligibility.
The key part to this appears to be (c). A high school football player cannot appear on a program where a member of the institution's athletics staff has been instrumental in organizing that player's appearance. Note that per 13.10.3.1, violations of 13.10.3 hurt Texas, but do not hurt the high school player. Interesting. Since there are dozens of potential recruits at a high school game, airing a single high school game (were it to violate 13.10.3) could potentially be a huge throng of institutional violations for Texas!
However, Texas sympathizers might argue that it is not a member of the institution's athletics staff doing the orchestrating here. They might argue that it is ESPN really doing the work here and all Texas did was receive the $300 mil from ESPN in exchange for licensing rights.
Firstly, I am not even certain if that is correct. It would seem unlikely to me that members of the Texas athletics staff would not be in any way involved with this process. Although they might not own full equity in the endeavor similar to the Pac-12 and the Pac-12 Network, they aren't just going to hand over complete and total control of their channel to ESPN.
Secondly, even if for some insane reason members of the Texas athletics staff have absolutely, positively no role to play in the high school games aspect here, it still might not matter. Let's take a look at NCAA by law 6.4.2 and in specific (b) and (e):
6.4.2 representatives of Athletics Interests. An institution's "responsibility" for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of individuals, a corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration or an athletics department staff member has knowledge or should have knowledge that such an individual, corporate entity or other organization: (Revised: 2/16/00)
(a) Has participated in or is a member of an agency or organization as described in Constitution 6.4.1;
(b) Has made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that
institution;
(c) Has been requested by the athletics department staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student athletes or is assisting in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Has assisted or is assisting in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes; or
(e) Is otherwise involved in promoting the institution's athletics program.
So, this states that Texas has "responsibility" for the conduct of representatives of its athletics department in some situations. (b) states that Texas would have responsibility for the actions of ESPN if ESPN "made financial contributions" to Texas athletics. A quick control F of the NCAA by law PDF doesn't seem to show any further definition of the words "financial contributions." So, I do not know if that is limited in some way to donations or if the money ESPN paid Texas for the Longhorn Network would quality there.
(e) seems to be the kicker here. It states that ESPN is essentially a representative of Texas athletics if it is "otherwise involved in promoting the institution's athletics program." BINGO! That seems dead red right there. Or dead burnt orange, as it may be. So, pursuant to 6.4.2(e) ESPN would represent Texas athletics' interests in putting these high school games together.
Which would mean that every high school game aired by ESPN's Longhorn channel would, in my understanding, be a giant mess of NCAA violations for Texas. Perhaps my understanding is inaccurate, but this seems like a reasonable interpretation of all the by laws reviewed here.
But am I missing something? Is there a way that Texas could pull this off without violating NCAA by laws and destroying the BigXII 1 year into its 10 teams phase? Tell us in the comments. GO BEARS!
26 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Did Texas sign this contract with the high school before or after Beebe offered this “compromise”?
Since the article is dated July 26th, and Beebe came out with the compromise last week as well during Big 12 media days, and the article says that the contract was signed the week prior, I’d say it was before the hullabaloo (A&M!) over the high school games.
Judging from what I read somewhere on CBSsports, A&M’s main defense is that the LHN is an institutional publication and subject to 11.2.3.4. If the NCAA says the LHN is a publication similar to the old recruiting guides of the ’90s, then the NCAA can ban high school games and point to the fact that the network acts on the behalf of the university and is therefore subject to classification as an institutional publication, even if it is not the typical print publication the bylaw originally referenced.
Is this the article you are talking about?
Texas A&M is urging the NCAA to use a 17-year-old rules interpretation that it believes would keep the Longhorn Network from airing high school games.
CBSSports.com obtained documents that show A&M wants TLN classified as an “institutional publication”, per bylaw 11.2.3.4, which would make it an “athletics representative of the institution.” The 1994 interpretation dealt most mostly with what was, at the time, an explosion among specialty print publications. Several newsletters, magazines and weeklies sprung up in the 1990s that covered individual schools’ sports. Several of those publications reported recruiting news in varying degrees as part of their coverage.
They were, in essence, what could interpreted as print versions of what the TLN is attempting to become in 2011. A&M is asking that the NCAA apply that Nov. 1994 ruling — regarding those print publications — to video-based publications
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Also, I wonder what the outs are in the contracts since they might have been signed before the “compromise”?
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Boom! LAWYERED!
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
The Opening
So, I’m trying to figure out how that works with Nike and The Opening? They paid for everything (benefits to students) yet there are a number of institutions (including us) that get money from Nike as part of our corporate contract with them. Doesn’t our relationship therefore extend their behavior and actions to us as acting on our behalf (or Oregon’s for that matter)?
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Aug 1, 2011 11:43 AM PDT reply actions
On a secondary note. The amount of times I’ve seen #swagg on Twitter has me concerned about how the NCAA will define amateurism for HS students prior to enrolling…I suspect we will be seeing more regulations there…what a mess.
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Aug 1, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Are you following Samuel Wagg on Twitter, too???
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Another question
Is the Longhorn Newtork considered a part of UT athletics just as YES is a part of the Yankees?
"it's like an alarm clock, WOOT WOOT!" -Bubb Rubb
by secret ASian man on Aug 1, 2011 11:45 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Oh and...
FUCK TEXAS
"it's like an alarm clock, WOOT WOOT!" -Bubb Rubb
by secret ASian man on Aug 1, 2011 11:45 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 3 recs
Could you please repeat that for me? I didn't catch that the first time. :-)
Bring back the Pac-10!!!
This whole issue is the latest one that has over-run the un-prepared NCAA.
The rapid advent of new networks (and the Pac-12 regional networks are really no different; the high school game of the week in each of the 6 Pac-12 regions is on Larry Scott’s radar too) and their need for programming, as well as the applicability of carrying high school games, something currently vastly underexposed, is something the NCAA never anticipated. All the rules were formulated with the school produced coach/promo shows in mind, not live coverage of games.
But then these are the same guys that have said you can call, but not send a text, not understanding that the technology will text a message with the transcript of the call anyway.
The NCAA’s focus has not been at any time on how to do this and still mitigate the problems, but as usual, how to prevent anything from getting done because there could be problems.
Texas has done what 400 pound gorillas in the room tend to do; bring attention to their issue.
The losers are likely to be the high school kids who don’t get on tv, and the fans who would like to watch.
What we need is a way for the rest of us to monetize the fact that the lawyers will make money on the deal.
Andy Wooldridge, andy_wooldridge@yahoo.com
BuildingTheDam.Com
Go Beavs!
Looks like I wrote this piece just in the nick of time:
Big 12 ADs met today. 1-year hold on HS games on The Longhorn Network. They’d like you to know all is hunky-dory. Lotsa love/trust in room.
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Texas
I dont think the conference should add any more members until Texas wants in again. My money is on the LHN failing and the Big 12 imploding. Everyone will realize that individual school networks are not financially viable and ESPN grossly overvalued the LHN.
Snarky, but true
Especially the last sentence. The more I know, the more I believe that ESPN is the Devil’s spawn.!
Question from an Aggie.
First off.. Howdy.
Two questions – Larry Scott’s recent remarks – “The Longhorn Network would be certainly a huge impediment.” How strong is that? I know you’re supposed to announce your PAC12 network this week, congrats on that, .. I was kinda hoping to get the perspective from a PAC school on if the LHN’s lack of compatibility with your Pac network would truly be a deal breaker.
2nd question – or least seeking clarification first. Your conference rules state that there must be a unanimous decision by all existing members in order to extend an invite ? I only slightly know the history of Stanford being the reason Texas didnt join ya in the 90s, but i didn’t know how much of that was true. If that is true.. I guess this is the same question as above but at a team level.. would you guys want Texas and all that entails ?
Thanks.
What FiatSlug said…..since ESPN owns the rights to LHN, I’d bet they’d dissolve the contract seeing as their revenue would also go sky high with a pac 16 that included OU and Texas…. Since I think Time Warner is a big player in Austin area…or so I was told, UT would have to somehow share a regional TV deal, most likey with TTU and possible the Okie schools….but as mentioned, it all hinges on UT being an equal and not a chest thumping Neanderfuck….plus another thing not talked about, if all this transpired, Dan Beebe would be out of a job or at least demoted and I’ll bet the conference offices would be out of Walnut Creek, Ca (across the bay from S.F) still…..UT would have to swallow hard to not be in charge anymore because neither the Pac 12 or Big 10 will let them get away with it…….very similar conferences both academically and athletically..
It's really very simple...
If Texas were to throw in all of its rights to the conference, just like every other Pac-12 member has, then there is a possibility that Texas could be a member of the Pac-12/16/whatever. If Texas is unwilling to share equally, then they’re not ready to be a Pac-12 member.
As for Stanf*rd blocking the Texas invite in the 90s, that’s certainly how the story goes. Not sure if it’s really true or if it’s just apocryphal. Doesn’t really matter, though. That’s about 20 years ago and it has little to no bearing on today.
I think that if Texas will fully commit to being equal partners in the Pac-12, then they would be welcome.
Stanford
I only brought that up to confirm if 1 PAC school had the power today to prevent a team from being offered an expansion invite.
Does that power extend to new members Utah and Colorado ?
Yes, Stanford blocked the Horns back in the mid-90s, and yes, Utah and Colorado have the ability to block new members. While Utah won’t receive their full share of conference revenues until 2014, they are still considered full-rights voting members.
While Utah might not object to UT being in the conference ($$$), CU would need tons of persuading in order to even consider a football division that involves trips back to Lubbock, Norman, and Stillwater over trips to LA, SF, and Seattle.
by RedOscar on Aug 2, 2011 6:33 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Interesting observation on CU
Certainly a tidbit to chew on. Appreciate the response.

by 
























































