As reported in The New York Times, the Big Ten and Comcast are butting heads over how (and ultimately how many) cable subscribers will be able to watch the fledgling BTN. The Big Ten wants Comcast to put the network on expanded basic cable alongside sports channels like ESPN2, Versus, and the Golf Channel. Comcast, meanwhile, wants to package the BTN with more "niche" sports channels on a separate digital tier that customers pay extra for.

For Comcast, it's a question of simple economics. "Indiana basketball fans don’t want to watch Iowa volleyball, but the Big Ten wants everyone to pay for their new network," the cable provider said in a statement. Comcast argues that after ABC, NBC, and ESPN have scooped up the rights to all the premier contests (particularly football and men's basketball games), what's left are "second- and third-tier events" that won't draw enough viewers to justify the cost of adding the BTN to expanded basic cable.

Elsewhere, the Mountain West Conference is also seeking to make its TV network (the Mountain) more visible. Some fans of conference schools complained last year that the Mountain, which many still don't have access to, was securing exclusive rights to games that used to be shown on local TV stations. In response, the MWC has hired a well-connected attorney whose primary goal will be to increase the network's distribution.

University of New Mexico President David Schmidly explained it this way to The Albuquerque Tribune:

"I chaired a committee in the Big 12 that looked into starting a new network, and I know it's very difficult ... That's why it's so important to hire a consultant. You need someone who knows the industry, is concerned about your interests, and can move you toward a distribution deal as quickly as possible. That's exactly what we got."

Back east, Atlantic 10 Conference fans can relate to the woes of their MWC counterparts. The last issue of Athletic Management covered the A-10's struggles with exposure since signing a new deal with CSTV. Viewers in many conference markets saw fewer games than they were used to, but the A-10 earned substantial rights fees and no longer had to shoulder the expense of broadcasting its own games.

For many schools, the question comes down to whether such a financial gain is worth a loss of exposure.

“We have a diverse group of members and every school will have to determine that for itself,” says Bill Bradshaw, Athletic Director at Temple University and Chair of the Atlantic 10 Television Committee. “For some, the amount of money is significant. For others, the exposure may be more important than the revenues. If we decide as a league that exposure is more important than revenue, we’ll have to build things into the deal that are not there now.”

For all these broadcast arrangements, and for new ones on the horizon, there is more at stake than simply revenue and exposure. As a columnist for the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal points out, conference TV networks are behaving more like corporate entities and less like agents of educational institutions. This shift has added fuel to the debate over whether college athletics should continue to enjoy tax-exempt status:

[T]he federal government is beginning to care about how the NCAA conducts it business. Bill Thomas, the former chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, last year asked NCAA president Myles Brand to explain why, given the NCAA's similarity with pro sports entities in its dealings with media rights and other big-money issues, it should continue to be tax-exempt.

With the government asking more questions, it's a bad time for the NCAA, Big Ten, and other college sports entities to get into such high-visibility games of corporate hardball. If they're going to operate like big businesses, soon they may find themselves being treated like them.

Greg Scholand is an Assistant Editor at Athletic Management.