Thank you Michigan for helping everyone to forget about OU-Boise State.

As a former OU Dad, I can agree with that, but at least everyone around here felt like Boise State was "for real" and had a legitimate chance last year.

Appalachian State certainly wasn't on my radar scope to upset Michigan, even with their impressive lower division national championships.

What I hope is that this kind of game will get some attention in the big conference schools who schedule these teams that they think will be sacrificial lambs in the non-conference season just to generate big stats and impressive numbers early.

Wishful thinking on my part, I know.

It'll still be Nebraska 221 -- Mississippi School for the Blind and Deaf -7.

Of course, you can fill in a lot of names in place of Nebraska, but the Husker Nation (again, fill in the blank in place of Husker) will still go crazy as if the game was for the National Championship.

Who do we hate?

Boise State

I was pretty shocked that the Vandals even scored against USC, wtf was going on in Southern California that the Vandals scored, let alone against USC (sorry amycat).

Screw the BTN, I'd rather listen to it on the radio and follow along online then watch some low budget public access channel. I always watch the big games in a social setting but games against teams like Ap state, EMU, and CMU arent worth it. Even if Michigan loses.

However, I'd imagine that more local cable companies will pick the channel up next season after the Big Ten keeps some marquee games for themselves.

I'd like to say LSU of course! :D But, way to early to tell. I really think this will be a great year for LSU. As for the fans predicting a NC year, only time will tell. We will see how things come together with Matt Flynn, the new Offensive Coordinator, and the offense in general.

We looked good on defense against Miss St. Offense struggled and was out of sync most of the first half. I'm not too worried about that though. I'm confident that things will improve.

I'm so ready for the home game against Virginia Tech!!!!! :)

I can't speak for the Big Ten Network, but we're certainly not a low budget public access channel. We are well funded and our people and production are top notch. We use exactly the same freelance people and equipment (production trucks) as the major networks. I'll say again that the lead game producer for BTN is a former Executive Producer for CBS and a producer I worked with when I was directing football for NBC Sports, so I would be amazed to hear that they don't do an outstanding telecast.

Looking at their executive team on their website, most of them come from big jobs at major networks.

Did you see the game? I'm wondering why you use the "low budget public access" phrase.

Is it because they're only on cable or DBS? Remember, so is ESPN and so are all of the FSN locals.

GO (CSUF) Bulldogs.
We are 1 for 1. OK, it was Sac State, but it was a win. After last year, please, a winning season. Next week, College Station:eek:

And the rankings are:
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/polls

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex

http://www.scoreboard.msnbc.com/msnb...caafb1a&cat=ST

I saw some of it from a friend who taped the game. Naturally, I didn't watch the whole game but it looked a little rough around the edges. I'll cut them some slack though, it was the first weekend. I worked in production for a few years but I'm not an expert by any means. However, my eye might be a tad better than the average viewer.

A lot of people here in the mid west are frustrated that we can't get this channel but don't really want to pay extra for it either.

Two questions:

Do you think there will ever be a day where tv viewers can pick their channels "ala carte"? I've heard that the BTN would cost around $1.10 a month in the eight state big ten region and .10 cents for those outside of it. I would love to have a hand picked 25-30 channel block that I would pay those fees for. Some would be pretty expensive such as espn but I'd pay for it as I know I would watch it a lot. One problem I would see is that a lot of channels wouldn't get picked up and could go under.

And the second one, do you think the big ten or anyone else might try to keep a few marquee games for themselves on their channel as incentive to be put on regular cable everywhere in the midwest? Would the ad dollars be worth it to do this?

A first game can be a little rough, especially for a new crew in a new truck. I heard that the Big Ten Network commissioned two brand new high definition trucks of their own since their contract is twenty years between the conference and the Chicago FSN local. That's a pretty big committment, and new trucks take a few games to iron out all of the little kinks sometimes.

I wish we had our own trucks, but that's a huge expense. We rent like pretty much everyone else.

It was also probably the first time the entire crew had worked together as well. That's tricky. I know, because the NBC games I directed in the past were not the national game of the week and I never had the same truck or the same crew (except producer and announcers which were constant) at all. Ever. It takes a little while to get into a rhythm.

Taking a shot at your questions, the chairman of the FCC has suggested that ALL cable be ala carte. If that's even possible with today's technology, my guess is that it would be pretty hard to track and the extra work in billing and the additional computer technology needed would probably drive up the costs of all of the services, and, as you point out, some of the weaker ones would probably not survive. That being said, there's a ton of stuff on my cable package that I could do without, so the bottom line result might be comparable. Of course my network is 50% owned by Comcast (and 50% by CSTV/CBS) so I get my cable free. Sorry.

That, by the way, is a difference between us and the BTN which is 51% owned by the Big Ten Conference. The conference has no direct financial interest in our network. One upside in that for us is that they can't really intrude into the content side of our sports/news type of shows.

Now, for everyone's information, all (or all I'm aware of) commercial driven cable and satellite networks make money in two ways. First is by advertising revenue and second is by a per subscriber fee that the network charges the cable company or Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service. It's no surprize that the most expensive is ESPN. The figures you mention ($1.10 and $0.10) sound more like subscriber fees per month than Pay Per View (PPV) fees which are generally considerably higher (comparable probably to a PPV movie for instance, which in our area is probably $5-7 per movie -- um, or game). It's probably not in the BTN's best interest, though, to do a PPV thing and dilute the impact of the network itself.

Finally, as for the marquee games, those currently go to the "major" networks for over the air broadcast. The networks pay the conference big bucks for those games and I would be shocked if that changes.

OK, so the above wasn't really "finally."

Remember that the driving force behind this movement is NOT the networks themselves, but rather the conferences who want more control over their own destiny in terms of dollars and scheduling -- and also want more exposure for the weaker teams in the conference. The Ohio State/Michigan game will probably never be on BTN (except as a rerun) because it's too lucrative in terms of dollars from the major networks.

I understand that BTN is doing what we've done here recently and that is a media campaign to try to get viewers to put pressure on the cable systems to carry the network. We're doing it to pressure the DBS services.

So, while that doesn't get pictures and sound of your team into your living room, I hope it gives you a little bit of insight into what's going on.

As I said above, speculation is that the SEC will be next, followed by conferences like the Pac 10, Big 12, ACC etc. as their contracts with the major networks expire.

Thanks for the explanation. The one thing that I will miss until I get the BTN is the non revenue sports that are still fun to watch like softball, track, and other sports of that nature.

Are these really right? How can Michigan still be ranked #5?

I admit that I'm now a VA Tech fan. All the stories they did before the VT vs. ECU game made me really want to pull for them. The game against LSU should be really good! I'm excited (although, I doubt I'll be able to stay awake for the whole game)!

Go Hokies!

I was wondering that as well; even as I posted them.
Seems as if the long weekend caused some delays.
Look at them again; Michigan fell a long way:(:eek:
Rutgers is still top 20.

We have caller ID, and when my sister-in-law from Detroit (a huge Michigan fan) called yesterday, I answered the phone, "Appallachian State University Athletic Department."

Poor baby.

:eek::p:D