Texas' Longhorn Network is losing lots of money. This isn't completely relevant to the ACC network situation but not completely irrelevant either. It helps explain why ESPN isn't eager to go ahead with an ACC network. And cord cutting is likely to make conference networks progressively less valuable as time goes on.

'Asked about the Longhorns’ sudden decline, ESPN senior vice president Burke Magnus replied, “Nothing suggested that could happen.”'


What?? Only history itself! Every program cycles---even big name ones. Alabama was down for quite a while, Texas was, USC is down now. What a delusional statement...

Though Texas is laughing all the way to the bank, this should serve as a bit of humble pie for them. They are realizing their brand is not as strong as they thought. In addition, Texas is realizing money can't buy championships, and in some cases can't buy competitiveness. They make the most money of any college team and didn't even make a bowl game this year. What's more disturbing is TCU and Baylor have become "cool" teams and getting recruits that would normally go to Texas. The most destructive move was A&M going to the SEC.

Makes me wonder if ESPN will try to move Texas and 4-5 big12 friends to the ACC and convert the LHN into the ACCN. Much better prospects for carriage on the entire east coast, gulf coast and Texas. ESPN doesn't like losing money, so they'll figure out some way to turn it around or at least stop the bleeding.

Guess you glossed over the part where it will be profitable this year

(12-28-2015 10:25 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Guess you glossed over the part where it will be profitable this year

A $2 million profit after losing $48 million isn't good. It would need to make that over the next 24 years to break even. It took bundling the LHN with other networks, like the SECN, to get the distribution up enough to finally make a profit after 5 years of losses. There isn't much room left to increase the distribution & profit margin.

The lessons are pretty straightforward.

1. It's about to go profitable, despite a litany of issues
2. You absolutely can't go through the long, ugly distribution run up that the BTN, LHN, and currently PAC networks all went through. It's a public relations nightmare, and once the public narrative turns into "nobody wants this", it makes it that much harder to negotiate with carriers. You have to launch with near total distribution like the SEC Network did.
3. There are important fringe benefits that outweigh the direct profit, the most important one is that ESPN guaranteed it would be in the Texas business, and most likely the Big 12 business, for the foreseeable future. With Texas an absolute possibility for the PAC or B1G, both with competing conference networks, this was important even if the LHN never more than breaks even. Is the PAC Networks still a failure story if they've got Texas, OU, etc in the PAC?

The relevance for the ACC is:

1. We're going to keep waiting for a network until it can be launched with universal distribution. We're not going to get it just to get it and be able to wave a flag. Even Swofford has stated it the ACC is not willing to go through the carriage embarrassments of other networks. So we're not going to see something for as long as that takes, if ever
2. The stability and overall value of the ACC investment for ESPN will play a factor in the decision to pull the trigger, in addition to the straight dollars and cents the network makes on the network itself. I doubt it would even be in discussions otherwise.

(12-28-2015 11:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  The lessons are pretty straightforward.

1. It's about to go profitable, despite a litany of issues
2. You absolutely can't go through the long, ugly distribution run up that the BTN, LHN, and currently PAC networks all went through. It's a public relations nightmare, and once the public narrative turns into "nobody wants this", it makes it that much harder to negotiate with carriers. You have to launch with near total distribution like the SEC Network did.
3. There are important fringe benefits that outweigh the direct profit, the most important one is that ESPN guaranteed it would be in the Texas business, and most likely the Big 12 business, for the foreseeable future. With Texas an absolute possibility for the PAC or B1G, both with competing conference networks, this was important even if the LHN never more than breaks even. Is the PAC Networks still a failure story if they've got Texas, OU, etc in the PAC?

The relevance for the ACC is:

1. We're going to keep waiting for a network until it can be launched with universal distribution. We're not going to get it just to get it and be able to wave a flag. Even Swofford has stated it the ACC is not willing to go through the carriage embarrassments of other networks. So we're not going to see something for as long as that takes, if ever
2. The stability and overall value of the ACC investment for ESPN will play a factor in the decision to pull the trigger, in addition to the straight dollars and cents the network makes on the network itself. I doubt it would even be in discussions otherwise.

This author and many others overlook the stalemate created by this contract. First, Texas will move to the B1G or PAC over ESPN's dead body. Second, ESPN may, of course, be disappointed with the performance of the LHN. And they might, consequently, like to produce a Big12 network, including Texas. Any attempt at such a network must go through ESPN. They have veto power through 2031. If ESPN doesn't get the network, the network doesn't get Texas. It's worth something to them to quash any notions their competitors have re. a Big12 Network
From the other side, if ESPN wanted to morph the LHN into the ACC Network (as was recently speculated) Texas (and IMG) would make it expensive and probably prohibitive. (I think that move would be far more complicated anyway, than many posters have suggested.)
The LHN is here to stay. Neither party will get rich from it, but it serves the interests of both.

(12-28-2015 11:55 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 11:40 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  The lessons are pretty straightforward.

1. It's about to go profitable, despite a litany of issues
2. You absolutely can't go through the long, ugly distribution run up that the BTN, LHN, and currently PAC networks all went through. It's a public relations nightmare, and once the public narrative turns into "nobody wants this", it makes it that much harder to negotiate with carriers. You have to launch with near total distribution like the SEC Network did.
3. There are important fringe benefits that outweigh the direct profit, the most important one is that ESPN guaranteed it would be in the Texas business, and most likely the Big 12 business, for the foreseeable future. With Texas an absolute possibility for the PAC or B1G, both with competing conference networks, this was important even if the LHN never more than breaks even. Is the PAC Networks still a failure story if they've got Texas, OU, etc in the PAC?

The relevance for the ACC is:

1. We're going to keep waiting for a network until it can be launched with universal distribution. We're not going to get it just to get it and be able to wave a flag. Even Swofford has stated it the ACC is not willing to go through the carriage embarrassments of other networks. So we're not going to see something for as long as that takes, if ever
2. The stability and overall value of the ACC investment for ESPN will play a factor in the decision to pull the trigger, in addition to the straight dollars and cents the network makes on the network itself. I doubt it would even be in discussions otherwise.

This author and many others overlook the stalemate created by this contract. First, Texas will move to the B1G or PAC over ESPN's dead body. Second, ESPN may, of course, be disappointed with the performance of the LHN. And they might, consequently, like to produce a Big12 network, including Texas. Any attempt at such a network must go through ESPN. They have veto power through 2031. If ESPN doesn't get the network, the network doesn't get Texas. It's worth something to them to quash any notions their competitors have re. a Big12 Network
From the other side, if ESPN wanted to morph the LHN into the ACC Network (as was recently speculated) Texas (and IMG) would make it expensive and probably prohibitive. (I think that move would be far more complicated anyway, than many posters have suggested.)
The LHN is here to stay. Neither party will get rich from it, but it serves the interests of both.

And if the Big 12 adds two G5 teams, which is looking more likely as there have been so many well-performing G5 this year, and there's been plenty of trial balloons in the media, the Big 12 will have been saved. It will have been a masterful play whether the LHN eventually becomes the Big 12 Network (got to be diminishing returns on that, don't you think unless maybe BYU is an add?) or remains the LHN.

Avoiding the competitive blow of Texas, OU, Kansas etc going to the PAC, and much more threateningly to the B1G and Fox, will have been worth every penny.

I don't think the LHN would ever be simply morphed into the ACC Network, but in the event that OU left the Big 12 and blew it up, it's more that the ACC/ESPN could accommodate the LHN as part of an ACC Network in a way that the PAC or BTN just can't as a competitor of ESPN. ESPN could keep the LHN as a branded version of the ACC Network in Texas, showing most of the ACC Network's live content of any interest, but replacing much of the taped content and/or minor sports with Texas-centric content.

But it would only be a matter of accommodation, I don't think there was any way the LHN would ever be morphed or strategically leveraged INTO an ACC Network.