I do not purport this to be anything other than speculation.

The following thoughts occurred to me this morning. Is there another motivation for the LHN being added to almost every cable/satellite provider during the same time period the SEC Network rapidly acquired impressive carriage rights contracts across the country instead of the obvious desire to get nationwide on as many carriers as possible?

The LHN's multi-year struggle to acquire carriage contracts somewhat quickly came to an end in 2014 as the LHN apparently scored media contracts one after another. Such success simply could have resulted after the time necessary to negotiate such deals. The timing likely was enhanced by Disney bundling the LHN with the SECN and other Mouse properties during such carriage negotiations.

But was there another motivation for the LHN entering into such contracts? The reason for such speculation is that there were reports during such time that the LHN entered into media contracts where it received zero carriage fees in states outside the Big 12 footprint. (I'll let other posters take the time to find them as I have to get to work, but I do remember such article(s) stating such after the 2014 contracts were announced.

Now entering such agreements for little to no money could have been a smart decision on the part of the LHN. Once you get on the channel list of a provider the LHN would be able to establish its viewership and negotiate higher fees when it is time to negotiate after the first contract ends. I definitely can see that, but the now obvious result is that ESPN now has another network with nationwide distribution across all major providers. The hard work has been done. The next question is how much value could this network provide? What is its greatest potential?

I do not assert the it was ever the original plan for ESPN to have the LHN be anything other than a Texas network and that ESPN has tried to get national media provider contracts that maximize the value of the LHN, if not short term, then long term. But look what ESPN now has; a national sports network that no one could really deny would generate much more money when its new media contracts are renegotiated at the end of their terms if such network had more sports content.

When such contracts end, which I presume would be in only a few short years, could we see a change in content that broadens out beyond Texas sports? Consider the profit a renegotiated LHN that contains only Texas content. Now consider the profit of something much more ambitious, a SEC Network West.

Can anyone really deny ESPN would make much more money with an SEC Network West comprised of the media content of the current SEC West schools, minus Bama and Auburn, plus Mizzou from the East and new members UT and OU? The current SECN would become the SEC Network East, and such network not having to negotiate getting a channel on each provider, just how much more money the network would be paid. Tremendous profits. Easy tremendous profits.

What about Texas? Why would they do this?

First, the writing could be on the wall that there will not be much more money coming in the next contract negotiations outside of the Big 12 footprint, and maybe inside of it, for the LHN. The providers have made clear they do not want to encourage more networks for individual schools in a world where they believe they are already paying too much for sports content networks. I believe a line was drawn where the networks said to ESPN that they would broadcast the LHN but we are not going to pay any considerable sum to do so.

Second, I do not believe Texas is as happy to be in Big 12 as many believe. Such does not come from just reading Texas sports message boards, though if one does so a certain noticeable angst is palpable.

Third, more money. More money is always a plus, despite UT being the richest program in the country, for now. I say for now because the differences in total revenue between UT and other powerful brands such as Ohio State, Alabama and others will likely be narrowed, and maybe past, in the age of the BTN and the SECN as such continue to grow over the years.

Fourth, and this is the strongest reason, exposure. It is my opinion UT has been horrified by the viewership numbers of UT football games compared to the average quality SEC matchup, and especially the numbers TAMU get even when they were having a somewhat average/below average year. Exposure, not more money, is what is most important to Texas. That was the primary reason for them creating their own network. Having millions of fewer viewers cannot be acceptable to the Longhorns. It is against everything they are about and contrary to good business sense.

Fifth, UT gets to enter the SEC with pride. While TAMU could always say, "UT followed us into the SEC", Texas could respond be saying, "Yes, but we brought a network with us".

Finally, as to both UT, OU and ESPN, the shear enormous potential of such a network could make such a network conversion happen, maybe inevitable. All reason against it pales in comparison. If OU's grant of rights to Fox prevents them from going at this time, Kansas stands there for the taking.

Lurker Above

The reason for LHN distribution is simple and doesn't require any black helicopter stuff:
ESPN wanted more money, and they saw a way to get it by bundling LHN with SECN.

Well UGA fan with all due respect that is a nice try to build a case for the SEC to get OU and Texas, but way too many erroneous assumptions for it to ever happen.

(03-05-2015 10:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The reason for LHN distribution is simple and doesn't require any black helicopter stuff:
ESPN wanted more money, and they saw a way to get it by bundling LHN with SECN.

The only contract it got bundled with SECN was the co-op with the tiny cable operators and that involved all the Disney/ESPN properties. Every other deal was separate. LHN carriage has trickled in as the Disney/ESPN deals expired. SECN has done nothing to help LHN. SECN got on DirecTV in August. LHN didn't get on until the ESPN/Disney deal was finalized in January. LHN still isn't on Comcast as their deal with ESPN was signed in 2011 when LHN was new. SECN got on in August. Time Warner and DISH signed LHN last year, before the SECN and when Disney/ESPN renewed.

I've never seen anything about it getting on for free anywhere. Since as a Texas fan I haven't seen that, I would guess that your sources would be some Aggie bloggers making stuff up and feeding it to SEC fans.

Texas has never seriously or even half-heartedly considered the SEC. That's just not on the radar.

If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

(03-05-2015 10:03 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  I do not purport this to be anything other than speculation.

The following thoughts occurred to me this morning. Is there another motivation for the LHN being added to almost every cable/satellite provider during the same time period the SEC Network rapidly acquired impressive carriage rights contracts across the country instead of the obvious desire to get nationwide on as many carriers as possible?

The LHN's multi-year struggle to acquire carriage contracts somewhat quickly came to an end in 2014 as the LHN apparently scored media contracts one after another. Such success simply could have resulted after the time necessary to negotiate such deals. The timing likely was enhanced by Disney bundling the LHN with the SECN and other Mouse properties during such carriage negotiations.

But was there another motivation for the LHN entering into such contracts? The reason for such speculation is that there were reports during such time that the LHN entered into media contracts where it received zero carriage fees in states outside the Big 12 footprint. (I'll let other posters take the time to find them as I have to get to work, but I do remember such article(s) stating such after the 2014 contracts were announced.

Now entering such agreements for little to no money could have been a smart decision on the part of the LHN. Once you get on the channel list of a provider the LHN would be able to establish its viewership and negotiate higher fees when it is time to negotiate after the first contract ends. I definitely can see that, but the now obvious result is that ESPN now has another network with nationwide distribution across all major providers. The hard work has been done. The next question is how much value could this network provide? What is its greatest potential?

I do not assert the it was ever the original plan for ESPN to have the LHN be anything other than a Texas network and that ESPN has tried to get national media provider contracts that maximize the value of the LHN, if not short term, then long term. But look what ESPN now has; a national sports network that no one could really deny would generate much more money when its new media contracts are renegotiated at the end of their terms if such network had more sports content.

When such contracts end, which I presume would be in only a few short years, could we see a change in content that broadens out beyond Texas sports? Consider the profit a renegotiated LHN that contains only Texas content. Now consider the profit of something much more ambitious, a SEC Network West.

Can anyone really deny ESPN would make much more money with an SEC Network West comprised of the media content of the current SEC West schools, minus Bama and Auburn, plus Mizzou from the East and new members UT and OU? The current SECN would become the SEC Network East, and such network not having to negotiate getting a channel on each provider, just how much more money the network would be paid. Tremendous profits. Easy tremendous profits.

What about Texas? Why would they do this?

First, the writing could be on the wall that there will not be much more money coming in the next contract negotiations outside of the Big 12 footprint, and maybe inside of it, for the LHN. The providers have made clear they do not want to encourage more networks for individual schools in a world where they believe they are already paying too much for sports content networks. I believe a line was drawn where the networks said to ESPN that they would broadcast the LHN but we are not going to pay any considerable sum to do so.

Second, I do not believe Texas is as happy to be in Big 12 as many believe. Such does not come from just reading Texas sports message boards, though if one does so a certain noticeable angst is palpable.

Third, more money. More money is always a plus, despite UT being the richest program in the country, for now. I say for now because the differences in total revenue between UT and other powerful brands such as Ohio State, Alabama and others will likely be narrowed, and maybe past, in the age of the BTN and the SECN as such continue to grow over the years.

Fourth, and this is the strongest reason, exposure. It is my opinion UT has been horrified by the viewership numbers of UT football games compared to the average quality SEC matchup, and especially the numbers TAMU get even when they were having a somewhat average/below average year. Exposure, not more money, is what is most important to Texas. That was the primary reason for them creating their own network. Having millions of fewer viewers cannot be acceptable to the Longhorns. It is against everything they are about and contrary to good business sense.

Fifth, UT gets to enter the SEC with pride. While TAMU could always say, "UT followed us into the SEC", Texas could respond be saying, "Yes, but we brought a network with us".

Finally, as to both UT, OU and ESPN, the shear enormous potential of such a network could make such a network conversion happen, maybe inevitable. All reason against it pales in comparison. If OU's grant of rights to Fox prevents them from going at this time, Kansas stands there for the taking.

Lurker Above

Perhaps the reason there is angst in Longhorn land is the performance of their football and men's basketball teams.
Just a guess, but win a few more games in FB and and BB and watch that angst disappear.
Success makes folks on the message boards (myself included) feel much better about the current state of affairs with their favorite team.

I think the only way for the sec to get texas would be to jump to 18 with Texas tech, OU, and Ok state and create 3 pods of 6. Its not a bad setup either with a 5-2-2 format for football. Ideally for hoops, i think you would want a rule change to have 2 conference hoop tourney with 9 teams on each side, divide the ms school's with e/w. The same concept works going east with UVA, Vtech, Unc and duke which barring the big 10 raiding the acc is the only way the sec could snatch those school's. To focus on texas, i think the sec should have open invites to OU and Ok state. If those 2 left the big 12, texas would need to move. Given the SEC would host all their rivals, it would be a natural move for texas to join. Worst case ,the SEC is at 16 with OU and Ok state if they accepted and texas didn't…which i think would be unlikely.

(03-05-2015 11:42 AM)lofi Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 10:03 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  I do not purport this to be anything other than speculation.

The following thoughts occurred to me this morning. Is there another motivation for the LHN being added to almost every cable/satellite provider during the same time period the SEC Network rapidly acquired impressive carriage rights contracts across the country instead of the obvious desire to get nationwide on as many carriers as possible?

The LHN's multi-year struggle to acquire carriage contracts somewhat quickly came to an end in 2014 as the LHN apparently scored media contracts one after another. Such success simply could have resulted after the time necessary to negotiate such deals. The timing likely was enhanced by Disney bundling the LHN with the SECN and other Mouse properties during such carriage negotiations.

But was there another motivation for the LHN entering into such contracts? The reason for such speculation is that there were reports during such time that the LHN entered into media contracts where it received zero carriage fees in states outside the Big 12 footprint. (I'll let other posters take the time to find them as I have to get to work, but I do remember such article(s) stating such after the 2014 contracts were announced.

Now entering such agreements for little to no money could have been a smart decision on the part of the LHN. Once you get on the channel list of a provider the LHN would be able to establish its viewership and negotiate higher fees when it is time to negotiate after the first contract ends. I definitely can see that, but the now obvious result is that ESPN now has another network with nationwide distribution across all major providers. The hard work has been done. The next question is how much value could this network provide? What is its greatest potential?

I do not assert the it was ever the original plan for ESPN to have the LHN be anything other than a Texas network and that ESPN has tried to get national media provider contracts that maximize the value of the LHN, if not short term, then long term. But look what ESPN now has; a national sports network that no one could really deny would generate much more money when its new media contracts are renegotiated at the end of their terms if such network had more sports content.

When such contracts end, which I presume would be in only a few short years, could we see a change in content that broadens out beyond Texas sports? Consider the profit a renegotiated LHN that contains only Texas content. Now consider the profit of something much more ambitious, a SEC Network West.

Can anyone really deny ESPN would make much more money with an SEC Network West comprised of the media content of the current SEC West schools, minus Bama and Auburn, plus Mizzou from the East and new members UT and OU? The current SECN would become the SEC Network East, and such network not having to negotiate getting a channel on each provider, just how much more money the network would be paid. Tremendous profits. Easy tremendous profits.

What about Texas? Why would they do this?

First, the writing could be on the wall that there will not be much more money coming in the next contract negotiations outside of the Big 12 footprint, and maybe inside of it, for the LHN. The providers have made clear they do not want to encourage more networks for individual schools in a world where they believe they are already paying too much for sports content networks. I believe a line was drawn where the networks said to ESPN that they would broadcast the LHN but we are not going to pay any considerable sum to do so.

Second, I do not believe Texas is as happy to be in Big 12 as many believe. Such does not come from just reading Texas sports message boards, though if one does so a certain noticeable angst is palpable.

Third, more money. More money is always a plus, despite UT being the richest program in the country, for now. I say for now because the differences in total revenue between UT and other powerful brands such as Ohio State, Alabama and others will likely be narrowed, and maybe past, in the age of the BTN and the SECN as such continue to grow over the years.

Fourth, and this is the strongest reason, exposure. It is my opinion UT has been horrified by the viewership numbers of UT football games compared to the average quality SEC matchup, and especially the numbers TAMU get even when they were having a somewhat average/below average year. Exposure, not more money, is what is most important to Texas. That was the primary reason for them creating their own network. Having millions of fewer viewers cannot be acceptable to the Longhorns. It is against everything they are about and contrary to good business sense.

Fifth, UT gets to enter the SEC with pride. While TAMU could always say, "UT followed us into the SEC", Texas could respond be saying, "Yes, but we brought a network with us".

Finally, as to both UT, OU and ESPN, the shear enormous potential of such a network could make such a network conversion happen, maybe inevitable. All reason against it pales in comparison. If OU's grant of rights to Fox prevents them from going at this time, Kansas stands there for the taking.

Lurker Above

Perhaps the reason there is angst in Longhorn land is the performance of their football and men's basketball teams.
Just a guess, but win a few more games in FB and and BB and watch that angst disappear.
Success makes folks on the message boards (myself included) feel much better about the current state of affairs with their favorite team.

And here is the answer.

(03-05-2015 11:53 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think the only way for the sec to get texas would be to jump to 18 with Texas tech, OU, and Ok state and create 3 pods of 6. Its not a bad setup either with a 5-2-2 format for football. Ideally for hoops, i think you would want a rule change to have 2 conference hoop tourney with 9 teams on each side, divide the ms school's with e/w. The same concept works going east with UVA, Vtech, Unc and duke which barring the big 10 raiding the acc is the only way the sec could snatch those school's. To focus on texas, i think the sec should have open invites to OU and Ok state. If those 2 left the big 12, texas would need to move. Given the SEC would host all their rivals, it would be a natural move for texas to join. Worst case ,the SEC is at 16 with OU and Ok state if they accepted and texas didn't…which i think would be unlikely.

The SEC has no need for both Oklahoma schools. The state is too small and one of them will bring enough of Oklahoma to be sufficient. I also don't see the SEC wanting Tech because they are so far West. I think if they double up in Texas it will be Baylor. Baylor brings solid football and men's & women's basketball. Baylor's combined records for those 3 sports since the 2011-2012 season is the best in the nation.

UT will never be voted into the SEC.

No other TX school will ever be voted into the SEC.

No more than 1 OK school MIGHT be voted into the SEC.

HTH, Next topic!

(03-05-2015 01:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UT will never be voted into the SEC.

No other TX school will ever be voted into the SEC.

No more than 1 OK school MIGHT be voted into the SEC.

HTH, Next topic!

SEC future expansion:
15. Oklahoma (for football)
16. Kansas (for basketball)

DONE.
(The ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 fight over the Big XII scraps)

(03-05-2015 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UT will never be voted into the SEC.

No other TX school will ever be voted into the SEC.

No more than 1 OK school MIGHT be voted into the SEC.

HTH, Next topic!

Big Ten future expansion:
15. Oklahoma (for football)
16. Kansas (for basketball)

DONE.
(The ACC, SEC and Pac-12 fight over the Big XII scraps)

I find the bolded changes to be more likely in the long-term, albeit still small. The inherent problem is that both Oklahoma and Kansas have little brothers that have political protection (Oklahoma State and Kansas State). I know that some realignment observers then like to say that the politicians in those states wouldn't let OU and KU stay in a dying Big 12, but the Catch-22 is that there isn't a dying Big 12 in the first place unless UT, OU and KU all leave (so OU and KU can't claim a dying Big 12 unless they're the ones killing it off, which is where the T. Boone Pickens political donation largesse comes into play big-time).

(03-05-2015 01:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UT will never be voted into the SEC.

Do you mean that the SEC schools wouldn't vote for Texas or that it would never come to a vote because Texas would never join the SEC?

Because if Texas wanted into the SEC I'm pretty sure the vote would be 13 to 1 in favor of Texas. They are by far the most valuable college property in Texas and one of the most valuable teams in the whole country.

(03-05-2015 02:33 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UT will never be voted into the SEC.

Do you mean that the SEC schools wouldn't vote for Texas or that it would never come to a vote because Texas would never join the SEC?

Because if Texas wanted into the SEC I'm pretty sure the vote would be 13 to 1 in favor of Texas. They are by far the most valuable college property in Texas and one of the most valuable teams in the whole country.

Yes, I agree. Texas is arguably THE most valuable team in the whole country. Every single conference would take them sight unseen as an EQUAL partner.

Now, the issue is that Texas doesn't buy that EQUAL partner notion at all. That's why they have continued to cling to the Big 12. They'd rather be in an "eat what you kill" scenario in a weaker overall Big 12 (where Texas is the one doing all of the killing) than be an equal partner in the SEC or Big Ten despite the fact that UT would earn more overall money. They just can't wrap their minds around the thought of why the SEC gives Vandy and the Big Ten gives Northwestern the same amount of conference money as Florida and Ohio State. There's a complete mental block there about the notion of conference unity.

I've said this before: Texas wants to own a huge ranch with worker bees from Waco and Lubbock, while Notre Dame wants everyone to get the f**k off of its lawn. UT actually has a psychological NEED to be in control of an entire conference of little brother schools just as much as ND NEEDS independence in and of itself (whereby the difference between 5 games against ACC schools versus 8 games against ACC schools might as well be as wide as Grand Canyon in their minds).

Think about this:

If UT joins, OU would come too. Bama and Auburn would get shifted East, Mizzou shifted West. The SEC West would look like this:

OU
TX A&M
UT@Austin
Mizzou
LSU
Arky
MSU
OM

Now who would vote for this?! Obviously we wouldn't but Mizzou isn't voting to be in a division with OU and UT. Neither is LSU. The MS schools don't want to be trading their long time games with the AL schools for that division. Only Arky might be happy with that division.

And that's just the West. While Auburn would be thrilled, Florida, UGA, SC and UTN would definitely not be voting for UA and AU as annual division games.

That's a lot of no votes....not that it would ever actually get to a real vote. That's not how the SEC works.

(03-05-2015 04:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Think about this:

If UT joins, OU would come too. Bama and Auburn would get shifted East, Mizzou shifted West. The SEC West would look like this:

OU
TX A&M
UT@Austin
Mizzou
LSU
Arky
MSU
OM

Now who would vote for this?! Obviously we wouldn't but Mizzou isn't voting to be in a division with OU and UT. Neither is LSU. The MS schools don't want to be trading their long time games with the AL schools for that division. Only Arky might be happy with that division.

And that's just the West. While Auburn would be thrilled, Florida, UGA, SC and UTN would definitely not be voting for UA and AU as annual division games.

That's a lot of no votes....not that it would ever actually get to a real vote. That's not how the SEC works.

True, but if you move to four pods then you have this sweet setup.

SEC West
OU
TX A&M
UT@Austin
Mizzou

SEC Southwest
LSU
Arky
MSU
Ole Miss

SEC Southeast
Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
Vandy

SEC East
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Kentucky

With a 3-3-3 setup I think there would be a lot of happy campers.

(03-05-2015 04:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Think about this:

If UT joins, OU would come too. Bama and Auburn would get shifted East, Mizzou shifted West. The SEC West would look like this:

OU
TX A&M
UT@Austin
Mizzou
LSU
Arky
MSU
OM

Now who would vote for this?! Obviously we wouldn't but Mizzou isn't voting to be in a division with OU and UT. Neither is LSU. The MS schools don't want to be trading their long time games with the AL schools for that division. Only Arky might be happy with that division.

And that's just the West. While Auburn would be thrilled, Florida, UGA, SC and UTN would definitely not be voting for UA and AU as annual division games.

That's a lot of no votes....not that it would ever actually get to a real vote. That's not how the SEC works.

We would take your purpose west division as the conference we play in. Heck, your east is nothing more than old guard SEC and that's the way they want it. The east would vote for that.

(03-05-2015 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UT will never be voted into the SEC.

No other TX school will ever be voted into the SEC.

No more than 1 OK school MIGHT be voted into the SEC.

HTH, Next topic!

SEC future expansion:
15. Oklahoma (for football)
16. Kansas (for basketball)

DONE.
(The ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 fight over the Big XII scraps)

Have you ever been to Lawrence, KS? The whole town was nearly burned down by southerners during the civil war and it was founded by abolitionists)-

It will be a cold day in hell before the Kansas fan base allows it to be a part of the SEC.

Very creative and I salute that.

(03-05-2015 07:57 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UT will never be voted into the SEC.

No other TX school will ever be voted into the SEC.

No more than 1 OK school MIGHT be voted into the SEC.

HTH, Next topic!

SEC future expansion:
15. Oklahoma (for football)
16. Kansas (for basketball)

DONE.
(The ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 fight over the Big XII scraps)

Have you ever been to Lawrence, KS? The whole town was nearly burned down by southerners during the civil war and it was founded by abolitionists)-

It will be a cold day in hell before the Kansas fan base allows it to be a part of the SEC.

I have tried to tell these folks how ludicrous the idea of Kansas joining the SEC is but some folks are dead set on trying to sell their biases instead of actual ideas based upon truths.

ESPN bought up Kansas's T3 rights as a short term investment and it will be an investment that pays out well thus earning their parent company's appreciation.