Reader comments
Dick Harmon: BYU finding ways to get games on TV

Page:
1
2
Next >

THANKS, MR. CRABB!! | 1:11 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Although it is too late for us to enjoy BYU football, perhaps this little toe in the door, or through the cracks--whatever you want to call it--will open the way for at lease a few of next year's football games to be broadcast to those of us who don't have Comcast, Versus, or the Mtn. in rural areas. I have listened to some of the games on my computer, which is the only way I can get KSL Radio. Better than nothing, but watching would be wonderful!! Good luck!

metamoracoug | 3:49 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Living in central Illinois, I've gotten nada on the TV over the last two years. My only options are KSL over the internet or the cstv internet deal (I saw two games for $80 on a 2" X 3" screen).

I've now watched BYUTV's airing of ALL of the games mentioned in the article. The crew isn't perfect, but not bad either. I've encouraged continued airing with emails and $$$ to the station. Since BYUTV is essentially public television it pays for its air time to the satelite networks. Broadcasting these games has to cost a bundle.

I had not thought about contacting the BYU sport's department, but I will do that today too.

Now is the time for positive action! BYU fans, let your voice be heard!

Iraqi Coug | 4:31 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Ayway to get the CSU, USAFA games schecduled at Mile High (Invesco Field)? That is so long as they are not home games.

Comments continue below

UteinOhio | 4:40 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Lawyers aren't all bad. I'd like to see all MWC schools find cracks and prove that there is a markete and get a better deal with ESPN.

Kevin | 4:48 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I have lived outside of Utah for the past 25 years and enjoyed seeing BYU football on ESPN at least once/twice a year. Now that the MWC has signed this deal I see less BYU sports than I did four years ago. A losing team like Notre Dame can get a deal with NBC to be on TV every week but the MWC signs a deal that restricts viewership. I just don't understand how this is progress. I hope that BYU can find a way to bust the contract wide open and allow for wider distribution of MWC sports events. I enjoyed watching the BYU/Michigan State game on my computer. However, I would like to view more MWC games on my HDTV like the rest of the country.

Illinois Cougar | 5:23 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I can't understand why any deal was done to start with. BYU could had negociated a side agreement for the rights to any game ESPN didn't broadcast. KBYU is a great alternative. It is like a fancy sports car. Why have it, if you don't ever drive it?

Cool | 5:29 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So does this mean we can watch the upcoming bowl game on BYU-TV? It's on a neutral site.

Anonymous | 5:38 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Thanks Tom Holmoe, et al. I enjoyed watching the Michigan State game and hope to see football next season. I am a BYU fan in San Diego for 40+ years.

BYU FAN | 5:48 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

In Arizona we listen to the BYU games on BYU Radio on Dish Network channel 980. It isn't as good as TV but at least we get to listen to the game.

Phillycougar | 6:32 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Cool - The upcomming bowl game will be seen on ESPN as they own the game so there will not be any problems watching BYU pound UCLA into the ground.

Dick | 6:34 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Harmon says, "If BYU could have defeated North Carolina in Vegas, the next BYU game could have been on BYU-TV."

WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

The game after UNC was Portland which was on BYU-TV even though BYU lost the UNC game.

Just another piece of bad reporting.

I think Harmon meant if BYU had lost to Louisville in Vegas, the next game would have been on BYU-TV instead of ESPN. There's a little difference in those two statements.

This is great! | 6:34 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

For football, Lets make tentative plans to play Utah in Logan next year, Utah State at Weber State, UNLV at Dixie. Plan all of the Colorado games at Mile High Stadium and we could play Washington at Boise State.
Then announce renovations for the Marriot Center and plan a bunch of games at UVSC and Energy Solutions.

That should get their attention.

To Cool | 6:36 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The LV Bowl does not fall under the MWC/CSTV agreement. The Bowl is televised by ESPN and they have exclusive rights to it. Thus, you can watch it on ESPN and nowhere else.

But, the good news is, if you have BYU-TV, you have ESPN so if you could watch it on BYU-TV, you will be able to watch it on ESPN.

Virginia | 6:37 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So it's come to this. We are excited about getting a regular season basketball game on TV. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game, but I'm not ready to call Crabb a miracle worker, nor do I get the feeling that we really "pulled a fast one" on the MTN. Seems to me like the problem isn't fixed (unless we move our home and away football games to Provo High School) Somehow I doubt it'll be any different next year.

Mark | 6:54 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Dick, fascinating article and great reporting, to ferret out some actual use BYU/Utah have gotten from hiring the media attorney.

While I hate to bring out "Mr. English Person", I notice you wrote the Versus' pull out from broadcasting the Michigan State game was because of "fear of duplicity in the market for that particular game". "Duplicity" means lying, not duplication, so probably not quite what you meant.

TexasPat | 6:55 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Now we are starting to crack the TV deal, it is time to crack the bowl alignment. We should be playing the PAC-10 #2 or Big-10 #2. Not the 4 th or 5th PAC-10. THis is due to our gutless commissioner. Lets find another attorney!

Dick was talking about.. | 7:28 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

For they person that asked about the next game after UNC. If you would pay attention, you would have noticed a win over UNC in a tournament would have meant one more tournament game BEFORE the Portland game.

It was not, as you put it "another piece of bad reporting", but rather a piece of bad reading.

Wow | 7:30 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

It takes a lawyer to figure-out this clause in the contract? How is it possible that a full team of MWC officials and media journalists never read the contract to find this loop-hole? I'm amazed at the incompetence of the MWC office and our news media, who both get paid to dive into details like this.

MarylandUte | 7:35 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

With all due respect to Mr. Harmon and all these ecstatic Cougar fans, televising BYU sports on BYUTV is bad for BYU and bad for the MWC. KBYU will not grow the BYU or MWC brand nationally and I'm pretty sure that KBYU isn't paying BYU or the MWC alot of money for the right to cover these games.

Playing hardball like this is a two-edged sword. Maybe the TV people will cave, or maybe they'll tell BYU and the MWC to shove it, cancel the contract, and we'll have to crawl back to ESPN for half the money and Tuesday night football games.

Peetie | 7:39 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

It's not Commissioner Thompson that is to blame, it's the Presidents of the University, he is their puppet. The Pres. come in do what they want to destroy things they really don't understand then leave a mess. Thanks Bateman and the rest of you who have moved on. After not being able to watch the Y and U these last few years I have found I really don't miss them. There is plenty to do and I've moved on. Try it you'll like it.

Change your Home Field | 7:48 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Here's a loophole. Designate Provo High, the MTC, or some other on campus location your new home field / home court. Then play all of your games on a neutral site LES / MC. You will then be able to broadcast them all. I like how the article title says BYU finding a way to get games on TV...basically inferring if it is on the mtn it is not on TV. Those are my thoughts exactly.

Washington DC | 7:58 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So far, I have watched more basketball games this year than I did all of last year. I encourage BYU fans to write a quick email to the athletic department thanking them. Hopefully they can continue to find ways to bypass the MTN/CSTV contract so that Cougar fans outside Provo can watch more BYU Sports. Better yet, maybe they can find a way to get out of the pathetic MWC and its horrible TV deal entirely (I know, wishful thinking).

CJ | 8:09 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Mr. Harmon, you meant "invoked", not "evoked".

Darrell | 8:34 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The BYU-TV strategy is a creative ploy by a smart attorney looking to justify his substantial billable rate. But ultimately the point is not just to have your games on TV -- the point is to get paid a substantial sum to have your games on TV. Clearly BYU-TV will not ever be paying BYU a substantial sum to broadcast BYU's games. So while this strategy gives BYU fans a short-term fix to the situation, it ultimately does nothing to solve the much-larger problem. In fact, BYU's strategy actually hurts the Conference's overall strategic position with regard to getting the satellite providers to pick up the Mtn. The more BYU fans are watching games on BYU-TV the less they are demanding that the Mtn. be picked up by the satellite providers, and the less likely the satelltiate providers will EVER pick up the Mtn. Thus, BYU has ultimately shot itself, and the rest of the conference, in the foot. Nice work.

Editors? | 8:36 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Evoked--invoked. Duplicity--duplication. Doesn't the D News employ editors?

Casey | 8:42 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Crabb - keep up the good work. Please advise the MWC to get the deals done with Sattelite and cable companies (more coverage) before they sign the next deal.

Please.

PROVO | 8:44 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

BYU should ditch the MWC, get the Utes and join the PAC 10, make it the PAC 12. Or go independent like Norte Dame.

Darrell, | 8:54 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Perhaps the point is not to make the money as you describe but in this case to take away the money the others would have had if they showed the game. The MTN contracts with Versus. Versus says nevermind and the MTN loses money. Comcast loses money. Everyone is happy! If Comcast expects to make money they better start showing the games!

Dave | 8:56 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Let's not mess with the Las Vegas Bowl and the current set up. BYU couldn't be better situated: BCS Championship if they're undefeated, BCS Bowl with one loss, and Las Vegas Bowl with two. I defy anyone to come up something better system than that!! I'm predicting a National Championship in the next two years...that'll get the TV contracts signed.

Doesn't matter, Darrell | 8:57 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

We've all put pressure on the dish networks, even though COmcast is the bad guy here. It has been to no avail and will contginue to be, So why shouldn't we take any opportunity we can to get our teams on television? I loved getting the BYU/MSU game on KJZZ. Whatever it takes to see the Cougars I am for it.
I also think the DN editors ought to be nmore careful of Mr. Harmon's wording. Some well educated people actually do read the sports pages.

Duplicity | 9:04 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary tenth edition says ".....2: the quality or state of beign double or twofold...." So Mr. Harmon did get one of two correct. Wow the man is human he makes a mistake, why don't all you want-a-be editors get off your higher than thou attitudes and give the man a break. The article is about BYU having the right to air their games and not about Editing.

To Mark | 9:04 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Mark,

"duplicity" has more than one meaning. While it also means lying, Mr. Harmon used the word correctly. Maybe "Mr. English Person" should befriend "Mr. Dictionary Person" and stop making himself look dumb in his efforts to portray Mr. Harmon as dumb.

Tom | 9:10 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Have we thought about leaving the MWC and joining the WAC which has a nice TV contract with ESPN and great distribution as well?

Switch | 9:14 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Let Utah play its home games at BYU and BYU At Utah and air them all.

Jack from Ark | 9:21 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Although I am excited of the prospect of putting more games on TV. In Arkansas we were able to see 6 of the 12 football games on TV. CSTV/VERSES. That is more than we saw on ESPN. It looks to me with a combination of CSTV / VERSES and this little loop hole we may get more next year. Lets hope so. GO BLUE lets take out UCLA and then make 2 and 1 next season.

CJ | 9:30 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Duplicity,

Of course Mr. Harmon is only human, as are all writers. That's why a newspaper employs editors .

Chicago | 9:32 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I live in Chicago and have been able to watch 3 or 4 BYU football games thanks to CSTV. This is as many or more games than I would have seen on ESPN. Besides, ESPN wasn't offering the MWC a Thursday deal, they offered a Tuesday night football deal. That is why the conference left.

The bad guy in this situation is Comcast. They play hardball. They do not own the rights to the Big Ten equivalent of the MTN in the Midwest so they do not carry the station. Instead Comcast runs ads every 20 minutes telling fans not to be upset at them, but to be upset with the Big Ten conference administrators. The ad even describes the administrators as "bullies". Hypocrisy!

Comcast holds the MTN hostage. They are the ones who are unwilling to share the rights with Dish and other service providers.

I'm glad Crabb found the loophole. I disagree with Darrell. Comcast lost out on this broadcast because folks who don't subscribe to them were able to watch the game on BYU-TV. The key to winning this battle is undercutting Comcast's revenue.

Steve Price | 9:40 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The attorney should also look at the agreement to pay the Mountain West something like $80 million (if my memory serves me well). We should be pushing the Mtn. to honor all of the contract which includes national distribution. We should be telling them they are not moving fast enough to distribute the games nationally and will not be able to honor their agreement to pay the MWC the money promised.

Imagine if we started all MWC games at neutral sites and got our own TV deals for them. Then at the same time tell the Mtn. to honor their agreement for paying the $80 million. The Mtn. would go broke and we could see the end of this stupid contract. Goodbye Mtn. and good riddance.

Dick | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

In response to "Dick was talking about" at 7:28 am:

If BYU had beaten UNC in Las Vegas, there would not have been another game. That was the final game of the tournament. UNC won the championship and BYU took second. Thus, there wouldn't have been another game to televise.

So, I maintain the statement in the column was a bad piece of reporting, not bad reading on my part as the 7:28 am post indicated.

Idahoan | 9:51 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I have been surprised at how many men's basketball games have been on BYUTV. I like it. I just don't like that the games have to be on a neutral court in order to be aired on BYUTV. Sure playing all games at neutral sites in order to get BYUTV coverage would be great for tv viewers, but not for the team and the fans that go to the games. The home-field advantage is lost.

FYI MarylandUte, BYUTV and KBYU are not the same thing.

bergstro | 9:57 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Ute fan here. Usually hate everything that even sniffs of BYU, but I actually watched some of the KBYU broadcasts. I felt like it was my silent way of saying "screw you" to the Comcast/mtn/VS/CSTV debacle (I cheered for whoever BYU was playing).

Fight on, Mr. Crabb. We'll watch anything, anywhere - I'm ready for a little revenge!

AZ | 10:33 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

While I love reading any article that suggests that the current MWC TV distribution deal is on the verge of collapse, this article is literally, "much ado about nothing."

BYU has had their B-ball games held at neutral sites broadcast in the past and always seems to have more B-ball games broadcast than football games. Furthermore, there will not be any football games played at neutral locations so even if this were some sort of breakthrough, which it really is not, it would not help the football situation at all.

I don't know if there really is a solution, short of breaching the contract, but why don't we at least spend our time in trying to contact the University Presidents and trying to get them to comment on a possible solution. I've never read anything from them. It's as though they are untouchable, unapproachable in this fiasco. Shouldn't they be held accountable for both this mess and for finding a real solution?

Garn | 10:39 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

BYU-TV should offer to air any conference team that plays on a neutral site. Really stick it to them Mr. Crabb!!!!!!

Kansas City Cougar | 10:42 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

www.byu.tv is a beautiful thing.

Anonymous | 11:13 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Forget the networks, they are never going to give the MWC and BYU anything but the crumbs. Let's just broadcast our own (BYU) games on KBYU--at least the fans outside Utah can see them. I can't believe BYU (or any other MWC school) has made any significant money of this "deal" anyway, so let's just do our own thing, our own way, and we might be surprised at how big KBYU suddently becomes.

Perhaps this is another nudge to BYU going independent, and tell the conference, the mtn, espn, and all the rest of them to get lost--we'll do it our own way and we don't need your help.

English usage | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

No, Mark had it right. Mr. Harmon is notorious for his misuse of the English language, and apparently the sports editor and the copy desk either don't know the difference or don't care.
For some strange reason, Dick talked about BYU both "evoking" and "eliciting these rights" in adjacent paragraphs. Their meanings are similar, but both mis-used. "Invoked" works well.
Later he wrote: "It could be cost or depleted revenues. It most likely is a fear of duplicity in the market for that particular game...." "Diminished" revenues would better express the intended idea, and "duplication" is a better word than "duplicity". And yes, (responding to ToMark) "duplicity" can technically be used to express a double state, but no one uses it that way (except, it seems, Mr. Harmon).
I'm just expressing a desire that those who write for a living be more precise with our language (I've given up hope that contributors to these forums stop writing "loose" when they mean "lose"!!).

Austin Collie | 12:02 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Sounds to me like Mr. Crabb is living right!

calcougar | 12:09 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Has anyone tried slingbox? They claim that with an internet connection and access to a cable system with the MTN (grandma maybe) then all games would be accessible. I might have to try it come next football season.

? Question for bergstro | 12:14 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Why do you root for whoever BYU is playing? That seems counterproductive to me. I root for Utah out of self-interest. It looks better when BYU beats a top 20 or even better a top 10 Utah team than when Utah is pathetic. My favorite B-Ball game was in SLC during the Chambers/Vranes/Ainge/Roberts era when a top 20 BYU team beat a top 20 Utah team (unfortunately Utah beat us that year in Provo). What was even better was that Wyoming was also a top 20 team that year. Oh for those days again. I always root for Utah and other conference members just so BYU looks better when we beat them. What is your reasoning? Do you just simply hate BYU that much? Pitiful and pretty dumb if true.

CaliFan | 12:30 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I live in California and set up a sling box at my folks in Utah and was able to watch every game that was on the Mtn. It works well if you don't mind watching the games on your PC and with lower than average picture quality. Your Utah connection has to have a fast upload internet connection to get the best picture.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.