The UCLA athletic director will join this "influential committee" that is supposed to "improve and promote the game of college basketball". Is this significant news? To be honest, I don't know. I doubt Guerrero's participation on this committee will have a direct, meaningful impact on the Bruin hoop program. However, the news release has some other interesting information, specifically the affiliations of other members of the group, which highlight the tremendous influence television has on college basketball. There are three representatives from CBS, one from ESPN, and one member described as a television analyst on the panel. Conspicuously absent: representation from Fox Sports. I think we all know that FSN is not a major player in the college basketball broadcasting landscape. so the question to ask is whether the Pac-10 and UCLA are being hurt to a large degree by having their weekday conference games only on FSN? Lute Olson certainly believes the conference is being hurt by it. For UCLA, it's not so much the exposure for the school. If UCLA goes back to being a top ten team, everyone will know about it, regardless of which station shows our games. However, in recruiting, there are going to be plenty of players looking at college as just a step to the NBA. these recruits want to be seen nationally, and playing for a Pac-10 school limits that due to its TV contract. In reality, the problem isn't so much with FSN - the problem is not being on ESPN. Right now, ESPN is the only TV source for college basketball programming, news, and analysis on a national basis. without games on its network, ESPN has little or no reason to show Pac-10 highlights, and certainly has no incentive to give the conference respect. and ESPN's popularity isn't going to wane any time soon, especially now that they have the Monday Night Football contract starting 2006.

As you might know, the Pac-10's contract is up with FSN after next season. This obviously is a great opportunity for the conference to improve its situation. I see two clear options: 1) give in and get at least some games on ESPN, or 2) continue as we are without games on "the worldwide leader in sports". Option 1 makes some sense - we could keep most of our weekday games on FSN, but have one featured game on ESPN. Olson supports this, and he cites the Big 12 as an example - they have a contract with FSN but also take part in Big Monday on ESPN. If the Pac-10 goes this route, though, we need to make sure we get our games on when people across the country can watch them, otherwise the purpose of this strategy is defeated. ESPN typically wants west coast games that start at 9pm PT / midnight ET - they come on after their main sportscenter showing. This would be terrible - instead, perhaps the games can start at 6pm PT / 9 ET. this would be a little early on the west coast, but assuming a 2-hour game, the 8pm PT sportscenter could start right after the game ends.

Option 2 is probably the riskier option, but it is viable. The conference would just need to demand more national telecasts and promotion from FSN. The schools themselves would have to also be proactive in publicizing the conference and the quality of its teams. Even with all of this, FSN still has nowhere near the national presence of ESPN - however, this could change: Rupert Murdoch, with his acquisition of DirecTV complete, is looking to start a national sports network that might be available only through the satellite service. he was hoping to get either sunday or monday night football to anchor this new channel, but he might go through with the venture anyway. if he does, he might be willing to pay a hefty price for any piece of college basketball, especially for a conference with no affiliation with ESPN. The cable company Comcast is also thinking of starting a new channel, so they would be looking for programming material as well. Both Murdoch and Comcast are looking into acquiring rights to the NFL's thursday night games. Yes, competing directly with ESPN currently is a dicey situation, but a truly national network with an NFL agreement in place has a much better chance of thriving than the regional FSN concept or (gulp) cnn/si (how bad was that?). If either of these channels came into existence and were willing to fully back and promote the Pac-10, while picking up some other basketball conferences and additional sports programming, this would not be a way to go.

Anyway, I don't think the TV situation is necessarily holding back the UCLA basketball program, but it certainly is a situation that can be improved. hopefully, we will do just that when the contract runs out after 2005-06.