http://newsok.com/the-big-12-conference-...um=twitter

The guy who basically started the BTN and PAC-12 Networks, and who was in the running to be the American's commissioner opens up about his failed attempts to get the XII to form a conference network and how that is costing them as the other conference networks are turning into cash cows.

Quote:Meanwhile, in the Big 12, Texas and ESPN connive to get as many as three games a year on Bevo TV, and Kansas State, a top-20 program by any definition, can't get its season opener televised even in Kansas.

Quote:The Big 12 could have been out in front of the conference television idea. Weiberg heavily promoted it. Tried to sell it. He was consistently rebuffed.



"I don't know that we ever put it to a formal vote," Weiberg said. "But it was obvious you couldn't get there." Conference bylaws required nine votes. But there were never more than eight in agreement, and even Kansas, wondering how it would affect its hoops, had serious questions.



"Hard to find that super majority consensus around it," Weiberg said.

Quote:And now conference networks are all the rage, with the ACC considering joining the club. Meanwhile, Texas and its Longhorn Network contract safely keep the Big 12 from considering a conference channel for 17 more years.

That statement does not bode well for the prospects of turning the LHN into a XII Network.

Is it just me, or is every press release regarding Big12 recently markedly negative?

(09-02-2014 09:48 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Is it just me, or is every press release regarding Big12 recently markedly negative?

It shouldn't be a surprise, if it is. As I said, the target is now on the Big 12. What is to come is inevitable and folks know it. The problem is everyone else is so far behind that they have to be "brought up to speed".

That means lots of negative marketing.

This might be just me. But I think that ESPN wants Texas to go to the ACC as a partial member like Notre Dame. That way ESPN could get max value out of its networks.

I wouldn't get too worked up. Consumers are getting fed up with their cable tv companies. The day is coming when they cut the cord.

Comcast and other cable tv companies have decided since the their demise is coming anyway, they are going to be complete a-holes until the day you quit. Many consumers will remember how crappy they were treated and vow never to get cable tv again. Never ever again.

Conferences are now run like tv networks, making bad decisions based on tv markets and branding that are only alienating their existing fan base while they chase that elusive new consumer.

While the big ten is going all out to try to win over the east coast, fans in the midwest are saying wtf, why does my team have a schedule without Ohio st, Mich, MSU and PSU? Why is the BTN only show classic games from other teams and not my team?

Conference networks are going to be looked at in 20 years as just part of what caused college athletics to fall apart. Whether its on cable or internet, fans will get fed up, or bored, with conference networks and go do something else.

The Big XII already has a network... It's called the Longhorn Network.

ESPN is simply doing to the BIG XII what they did to the BIG EAST. Time will tell whether the BIG XII is strong enough to survive.

(09-03-2014 06:33 AM)jnewyouth Wrote:  ESPN is simply doing to the BIG XII what they did to the BIG EAST. Time will tell whether the BIG XII is strong enough to survive.

After 2025 all bets are off, but what on earth threatens the Big 12 before then? They are making gobs of TV money and also CFP money.

Texas might not like that the BTN and SECN mean those conferences will clearly make more first-tier media money, but thanks to the LHN they will make the same as those schools anyway. And the lesser Big 12 schools, of which there are many, know they can't do any better than they are.

Sounds stable to me ...

(09-02-2014 09:09 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  http://newsok.com/the-big-12-conference-...um=twitter

The guy who basically started the BTN and PAC-12 Networks, and who was in the running to be the American's commissioner opens up about his failed attempts to get the XII to form a conference network and how that is costing them as the other conference networks are turning into cash cows.

Quote:Meanwhile, in the Big 12, Texas and ESPN connive to get as many as three games a year on Bevo TV, and Kansas State, a top-20 program by any definition, can't get its season opener televised even in Kansas.

Quote:The Big 12 could have been out in front of the conference television idea. Weiberg heavily promoted it. Tried to sell it. He was consistently rebuffed.



"I don't know that we ever put it to a formal vote," Weiberg said. "But it was obvious you couldn't get there." Conference bylaws required nine votes. But there were never more than eight in agreement, and even Kansas, wondering how it would affect its hoops, had serious questions.



"Hard to find that super majority consensus around it," Weiberg said.

Quote:And now conference networks are all the rage, with the ACC considering joining the club. Meanwhile, Texas and its Longhorn Network contract safely keep the Big 12 from considering a conference channel for 17 more years.

That statement does not bode well for the prospects of turning the LHN into a XII Network.

You did not copy the biggest quote:

“Challenges cause some institutions to question and engage, which could lead to more change. I think the Big 12 has come through it in a good spot. Has a chance for a bright future.”

Remember who he works for now. I believe this line was well thought out before the interview.

(09-03-2014 04:03 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  This might be just me. But I think that ESPN wants Texas to go to the ACC as a partial member like Notre Dame. That way ESPN could get max value out of its networks.

It's not just you.

(09-03-2014 04:03 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  This might be just me. But I think that ESPN wants Texas to go to the ACC as a partial member like Notre Dame. That way ESPN could get max value out of its networks.

Texas is feeling a scheduling disadvantage versus TAMU. Do you really think folks at Texas will relish having visits and visiting ACC schools they have zero history with while TAMU hosts Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, etc.?

(09-02-2014 09:48 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Is it just me, or is every press release regarding Big12 recently markedly negative?

As someone said on another board, well it IS Berry Trammel (He's a die-hard Sooner fan).

Note when he talks about Texas, Nebraska and A&M wanting to keep their own media rights, its not a quote from Weinberg. That's Trammel talking. Fact is Texas and Nebraska were the only ones willing to study a conference network and they financed a study without help from the other 8.

In fairness to the schools, no one thought that stuff was worth anything at the time. Only the Big 10 had a network and they were struggling to get carriage. The Pac 12 and SEC have only jumped on board now that the Big 10 is making money. Texas didn't do the Longhorn Network to make money. They did it for exposure.

(09-03-2014 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 04:03 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  This might be just me. But I think that ESPN wants Texas to go to the ACC as a partial member like Notre Dame. That way ESPN could get max value out of its networks.

Texas is feeling a scheduling disadvantage versus TAMU. Do you really think folks at Texas will relish having visits and visiting ACC schools they have zero history with while TAMU hosts Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, etc.?

My guess is if something like that happened they will still play Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Baylor yearly while rotating Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and Miami.

The advantage comes in a much better basketball schedule with Duke, North Carolina, Louisville and Syracuse.

(09-03-2014 08:59 AM)Maize Wrote:  My guess is if something like that happened they will still play Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Baylor yearly while rotating Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and Miami.

If that were to happen, and it is like the Notre Dame deal (and I can't see them having more leverage than ND), the ACC picks who each team plays, and they have a fairly even rotation over 12 years.

However "if" they wanted to do it, if they set up similar to ND who has three teams they will play every year (Stanford, USC, and Navy) plus 5 ACC teams, that still leaves Texas plenty of room to schedule Oklahoma plus two more every year (I don't know who they would be, but I assume two instate teams) and still have room to schedule 4 OOC games. Actually, if either side wanted, they would have room to add aTm back on the schedule

Again I don't know that it would or could happen, but I think it could work for them schedule wise.

Be careful what you wish for.

Two of the schools specifically referenced as being opposed (Nebraska and Texas A&M) are now in conferences that do have equal revenue sharing. While it could never have gotten done without buy-in from UT and OU (and KU may also have been a holdout, although they're not mentioned), at least some of the blame for the Big 12's current position comes from schools who were as much to blame for some of the conference's decisions as those they left behind.

(09-03-2014 09:15 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 08:59 AM)Maize Wrote:  My guess is if something like that happened they will still play Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Baylor yearly while rotating Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and Miami.

If that were to happen, and it is like the Notre Dame deal (and I can't see them having more leverage than ND), the ACC picks who each team plays, and they have a fairly even rotation over 12 years.

However "if" they wanted to do it, if they set up similar to ND who has three teams they will play every year (Stanford, USC, and Navy) plus 5 ACC teams, that still leaves Texas plenty of room to schedule Oklahoma plus two more every year (I don't know who they would be, but I assume two instate teams) and still have room to schedule 4 OOC games. Actually, if either side wanted, they would have room to add aTm back on the schedule

Again I don't know that it would or could happen, but I think it could work for them schedule wise.

I definitely think that it could work. Frankly, I find that scenario to be more likely than Texas joining as a full member of any other power conference at this point.

The one caveat is that I firmly believe that Texas loves/needs control. A few years ago when I first started writing about conference realignment, I thought that Texas was looking to ditch Texas Tech, Baylor, et. al because they were dragging the school's potential revenue down. After all of this, I've come to the conclusion that Texas actually WANTS the Techs and Baylors around to control in a conference. The analogy that I've used before is that Texas wants a huge estate with a bunch of worker bees from Waco and Lubbock, whereas Notre Dame just wants everyone to get the f**k off of its lawn. Notre Dame's view of power is that it controls itself without any strings attached, while the Texas view of power is being able to control others as the the head of a conference.

(09-03-2014 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:15 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 08:59 AM)Maize Wrote:  My guess is if something like that happened they will still play Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Baylor yearly while rotating Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and Miami.

If that were to happen, and it is like the Notre Dame deal (and I can't see them having more leverage than ND), the ACC picks who each team plays, and they have a fairly even rotation over 12 years.

However "if" they wanted to do it, if they set up similar to ND who has three teams they will play every year (Stanford, USC, and Navy) plus 5 ACC teams, that still leaves Texas plenty of room to schedule Oklahoma plus two more every year (I don't know who they would be, but I assume two instate teams) and still have room to schedule 4 OOC games. Actually, if either side wanted, they would have room to add aTm back on the schedule

Again I don't know that it would or could happen, but I think it could work for them schedule wise.

I definitely think that it could work. Frankly, I find that scenario to be more likely than Texas joining as a full member of any other power conference at this point.

The one caveat is that I firmly believe that Texas loves/needs control. A few years ago when I first started writing about conference realignment, I thought that Texas was looking to ditch Texas Tech, Baylor, et. al because they were dragging the school's potential revenue down. After all of this, I've come to the conclusion that Texas actually WANTS the Techs and Baylors around to control in a conference. The analogy that I've used before is that Texas wants a huge estate with a bunch of worker bees from Waco and Lubbock, whereas Notre Dame just wants everyone to get the f**k off of its lawn. Notre Dame's view of power is that it controls itself without any strings attached, while the Texas view of power is being able to control others as the the head of a conference.

And Texas was able to do that with the guise of equal revenue sharing. Prior to the LHN, the XII had an appearance-based revenue distribution. The more a team was on national TV, the more it got paid. Texas of course was the leader in the clubhouse. After Nebraska and Colorado bailed, and the PAC-16 concept died, the rest of the conference sought to reconcile that issue. Meanwhile Texas got its own Network and was able to keep themselves on top in terms of revenue even with an "equal" distribution, thanks to the "sell your own Tier 3" concept. So while Texas gets $15M/yr from ESPN for the LHN, Kansas State can't even find a partner to broadcast its Tier 3 game, and the disparity continues.

the problem I see with Texas/ACC- Oklahoma then likely goes SEC with Ok St. So Texas 2 big rivals- A&M and Oklahoma are getting to play a SEC schedule- seeing Alabama, LSU, Auburn, etc. regularly. Meanwhile, Texas sees 5 ACC schools who they have no history with at all and then 7 other games. I think this is a problem that Texas is going to have to face big time. They can't afford to have Oklahoma go SEC as well- and that's something that is likely an automatic if Texas goes ACC.

(09-03-2014 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Notre Dame's view of power is that it controls itself without any strings attached, while the Texas view of power is being able to control others as the the head of a conference.

The other school that comes to mind that has the same attitude towards power as Texas is ... North Carolina. Which is one reason why I think a Texas-ACC alignment is very unlikely.