Nothing happened. All discussions postponed until June.

(02-04-2016 04:51 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 04:32 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  LHN becoming the Big 12 Network makes more sense than two nets, the worst of the getting carriage has been done and should open up some more doors.

Why would Fox allow OU's 3rd tier content go to ESPN? There are some impediments to the LHN becoming the Big12N.

Not really. If Texas says jump, the rest of the Big12 will ask "how high?"

how high? Oh, about $15 million per year.

Quote:Under the ESPN contract, LHN pays Texas an average minimum annual royalty of $15 million. Once that $295 million investment on studios, offices, fiber-optic cable and personnel is recouped by ESPN, 70 percent of LHN revenue will go to Texas.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ey-revenue

The SEC Network pays about $6.5 million per school, so Texas is getting more than twice as much as the most successful conference network currently pays - and there's a good chance the ENTIRE Big XII wouldn't get much more than $15 million per year (i.e. about $2M per team) from a possible B12N.

THAT is a problem.

SEC - population of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky: about 96 million
Big XII - population of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and West Virginia: about 39 million

If the SEC Network pays about $6.5M per team to 14 teams + the SEC = $6.5M X 15 = $97.5M,
then we would expect the Big XII network to pay about $97.5M X (39/96) = $39.6M
Divide that 11 ways and you get $3.6M per team = best case scenario.

If you have to subtract out $15M for Texas first, that only leaves $24.6M, split 10 ways = $2.5M per team

Math don't lie.

(02-04-2016 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 01:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  well that depends if anybody is watching the LHN. They may get more exposure on a B12N across the country than just being on the LHN with in Texas only....and even then, not as many people are watching LHN in Texas as some believe.

They don't really care about getting watched in Iowa. They care about getting watched in Texas.

I think your wrong about that. Besides, the issue is nobodys watching....period. UT volleyball and swimming has very narrow appeal.

That is, indeed, an issue for conference networks. Football provides live programming for perhaps 14 days and 28 evenings during the year. That leaves a lot of time to fill. Strong basketball conferences help in this regard, but there's still going to be a lot of dead space over the course of 52 weeks.

The biggest thing is carriage and appeal. Right now, a single school network has incredibly narrow appeal. That affects its carriage.

The Big10 Network has 62 million subscribers.

The SEC Network has about 69 million subscribers.

The Pac-12 Network has 13 million subscribers (there are just fewer people west of Texas than there are east of Texas and they have no cable partner to help them get on additional cable systems).

The LHN has 8 million subscribers.

Frankly, Im surprised the LHN even has that many subscribers. Converting the LHN to the B12-N would likely place it somewhere between the SEC/B1G networks and the Pac-12 Network. The Big12 would likely do pretty well with it. Heres a good piece on the Big-12 Network issues.


http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...-meet-week

I have doubts that information is current. LHN is on everywhere but Comcast and non-Texas Time Warner. DirectTV has 20 million and DISH 14 million subscribers. Not all will be on the lowest tiers.

Actually found this-ESPN in December said they had 20 million.
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2...loser.html

Even Kagan's critical article (which said LHN will make money this year) said they had 7.5 million.

(02-04-2016 05:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  SEC - population of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky: about 96 million
Big XII - population of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and West Virginia: about 39 million

If the SEC Network pays about $6.5M per team to 14 teams + the SEC = $6.5M X 15 = $97.5M,
then we would expect the Big XII network to pay about $97.5M X (39/96) = $39.6M
Divide that 11 ways and you get $3.6M per team = best case scenario.

If you have to subtract out $15M for Texas first, that only leaves $24.6M, split 10 ways = $2.5M per team

Math don't lie.

Garbage in, garbage out.

While your general approach is valid, this was the first year of the SECN and they had a lot of startup costs and only 11 months. They should go up significantly this year.

(02-04-2016 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  LHN becoming the Big 12 Network makes more sense than two nets, the worst of the getting carriage has been done and should open up some more doors.

But it won't happen unless UT gets paid what they were going to get paid for LHN and the rest of the league getting whatever they can from expanded coverage.

That actually makes no sense.

They have carriage agreements for LHN at a certain rate. Just because they change it doesn't mean they will get better rates. FS1 and FS2 have already found that out.

(02-04-2016 05:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  SEC - population of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky: about 96 million
Big XII - population of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and West Virginia: about 39 million

If the SEC Network pays about $6.5M per team to 14 teams + the SEC = $6.5M X 15 = $97.5M,
then we would expect the Big XII network to pay about $97.5M X (39/96) = $39.6M
Divide that 11 ways and you get $3.6M per team = best case scenario.

If you have to subtract out $15M for Texas first, that only leaves $24.6M, split 10 ways = $2.5M per team

Math don't lie.

Garbage in, garbage out.

While your general approach is valid, this was the first year of the SECN and they had a lot of startup costs and only 11 months. They should go up significantly this year.

It should be interesting and we will debate the increase. What is your best guess on the increase?

(02-04-2016 08:07 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:23 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  SEC - population of Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky: about 96 million
Big XII - population of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and West Virginia: about 39 million

If the SEC Network pays about $6.5M per team to 14 teams + the SEC = $6.5M X 15 = $97.5M,
then we would expect the Big XII network to pay about $97.5M X (39/96) = $39.6M
Divide that 11 ways and you get $3.6M per team = best case scenario.

If you have to subtract out $15M for Texas first, that only leaves $24.6M, split 10 ways = $2.5M per team

Math don't lie.

Garbage in, garbage out.

While your general approach is valid, this was the first year of the SECN and they had a lot of startup costs and only 11 months. They should go up significantly this year.

It should be interesting and we will debate the increase. What is your best guess on the increase?

I have no idea what their startup costs were. Clearly they will go up at least 1/12th for the extra month.

Sounds like Texas doesn't care much about what OU wants...so let's see what Boren does now.

(02-04-2016 08:39 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Sounds like Texas doesn't care much about what OU wants...so let's see what Boren does now.

Well that's the refrain, but its, as usual, bs from someone doing what they believe is in their interest and they don't care about anyone else, like Nebraska, A&M and Missouri. You would think they could just man up at the time and say this is what we believe is in our interests instead of blaming others for their decisions. That's what Colorado did.

(02-04-2016 05:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Nothing happened. All discussions postponed until June.

Um, the Presidents meet tomorrow. The ADs met today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../79851446/

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...tv-network

(02-04-2016 05:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  LHN becoming the Big 12 Network makes more sense than two nets, the worst of the getting carriage has been done and should open up some more doors.

But it won't happen unless UT gets paid what they were going to get paid for LHN and the rest of the league getting whatever they can from expanded coverage.

That actually makes no sense.

They have carriage agreements for LHN at a certain rate. Just because they change it doesn't mean they will get better rates. FS1 and FS2 have already found that out.

It only makes no sense if you operate on the assumption that there will be no new subscribers and further assume that providers in Texas pay the same amount as a provider in Arkansas.

If it becomes a Big XII network there is far more interest in B12N in West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia than there is in LHN.

(02-05-2016 01:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If it becomes a Big XII network there is far more interest in B12N in West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia than there is in LHN.

West Virginia....So nice, he said it twice!

Well, ready for round 2 with the presidents?

(02-05-2016 01:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  LHN becoming the Big 12 Network makes more sense than two nets, the worst of the getting carriage has been done and should open up some more doors.

But it won't happen unless UT gets paid what they were going to get paid for LHN and the rest of the league getting whatever they can from expanded coverage.

That actually makes no sense.

They have carriage agreements for LHN at a certain rate. Just because they change it doesn't mean they will get better rates. FS1 and FS2 have already found that out.

It only makes no sense if you operate on the assumption that there will be no new subscribers and further assume that providers in Texas pay the same amount as a provider in Arkansas.

If it becomes a Big XII network there is far more interest in B12N in West Virginia, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia than there is in LHN.

There won't be many new subscribers. LHN is on everywhere but Comcast and non-Texas Time Warner. They probably will get on Comcast next year when ESPN renews.

So they would probably be stuck with .35 rates in Texas and also with the 5 cents or 2 cents or whatever they are getting out of Texas until the contract expires.

(02-04-2016 11:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...tv-network

This is pretty big, it's the first time that I've seen Bowlsby echo Boren's idea that all three topics (championship game, TV network, and expansion) are under serious discussion. This is also the first time I've seen them say they're studying 14 in addition to studying 12 or 10. There are still good reasons why they may decide to avoid 14, but basically everything is on the table.

It Reads like lip service to me.

(02-05-2016 09:32 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 11:27 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...tv-network

This is pretty big, it's the first time that I've seen Bowlsby echo Boren's idea that all three topics (championship game, TV network, and expansion) are under serious discussion. This is also the first time I've seen them say they're studying 14 in addition to studying 12 or 10. There are still good reasons why they may decide to avoid 14, but basically everything is on the table.

Not really. He has said no ccg, 10 teams and no network puts them at somewhat of a disadvantage.

BHV has suggested it might be too late for the ACC to form a conference network. Wonder what they will tell the Big12?