(03-08-2016 08:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 07:50 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  The ACC is a completely different story than the Big Ten. Past grievances and the will of the Southern football schools played the biggest role. (Tobacco Road, for the most part, was actually pro-UCONN from what I've read.)

PSU wants games in front of their donors and potential recruits. The ACC improved enough to make PSU leaving a realistic possibility. The B1G really wants to keep PSU because PSU is incredibly valuable because PSU has a legion of fans and has a formidable program. Rutgers has solid academics and is exactly where PSU's big donors are, which is also where PSU recruits. Additionally, RU is a good school, NJ/NYC/east PA is rich in talent (athletic and academic) in general, and a number of B1G schools have big donors who live near RU. RU's positives + keeping PSU was worth more than RU's negatives for the B1G. That's why RU was added and UConn wasn't.

UConn has a better athletic department and comparable academics. You just don't move PSU's needle as much because you aren't as close to donors and recruits. It had nothing to do with RU's TV value. The AAC and the BIG EAST made that abundantly clear, as does basic economics (i.e. supply and demand).

Only ACC fanboys think Penn State was actually considering the ACC. Where's the proof?

Rutgers was all about the $ and getting the BTN into the New Jersey/New York market.

Apparently Wisconsin's athletic director is an ACC fan boy, as is Jim Delaney and several ESPN commentators.

And apparently the underlying idea of pricing (supply and demand curves) eludes you. But hey, every major economist since Adam Smith could be wrong.

No links. No surprise.

The only economics I need to know is that $ talks. NY/NJ $ is some of the best in the country.

Good freaking lord. Look at the post directly above your response.

Also, apparently you're missing the nuisance of the United States having a common currency.

(03-08-2016 08:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  PSU wants games in front of their donors and potential recruits. The ACC improved enough to make PSU leaving a realistic possibility. The B1G really wants to keep PSU because PSU is incredibly valuable because PSU has a legion of fans and has a formidable program. Rutgers has solid academics and is exactly where PSU's big donors are, which is also where PSU recruits. Additionally, RU is a good school, NJ/NYC/east PA is rich in talent (athletic and academic) in general, and a number of B1G schools have big donors who live near RU. RU's positives + keeping PSU was worth more than RU's negatives for the B1G. That's why RU was added and UConn wasn't.

UConn has a better athletic department and comparable academics. You just don't move PSU's needle as much because you aren't as close to donors and recruits. It had nothing to do with RU's TV value. The AAC and the BIG EAST made that abundantly clear, as does basic economics (i.e. supply and demand).

Only ACC fanboys think Penn State was actually considering the ACC. Where's the proof?

Rutgers was all about the $ and getting the BTN into the New Jersey/New York market.

Apparently Wisconsin's athletic director is an ACC fan boy, as is Jim Delaney and several ESPN commentators.

And apparently the underlying idea of pricing (supply and demand curves) eludes you. But hey, every major economist since Adam Smith could be wrong.

No links. No surprise.

The only economics I need to know is that $ talks. NY/NJ $ is some of the best in the country.

Good freaking lord. Look at the post directly above your response.

I replied before your response. You are an idiot.

(03-08-2016 08:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:42 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Only ACC fanboys think Penn State was actually considering the ACC. Where's the proof?

Rutgers was all about the $ and getting the BTN into the New Jersey/New York market.

Apparently Wisconsin's athletic director is an ACC fan boy, as is Jim Delaney and several ESPN commentators.

And apparently the underlying idea of pricing (supply and demand curves) eludes you. But hey, every major economist since Adam Smith could be wrong.

No links. No surprise.

The only economics I need to know is that $ talks. NY/NJ $ is some of the best in the country.

Good freaking lord. Look at the post directly above your response.

I replied before your response. You are an idiot.

Yuppers. I'm the idiot. My post being above yours is a conspiracy. Clearly I'm a UConn-hating ACC fan boy.

(03-08-2016 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 07:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  3) If the LHN can be converted to a B12 Network ...

That's the only way a Big-12 Network is feasible. You cant have a B12 Network as a complete start up with NO UT content. With a conversion, start up costs are nil---and the UT content is included in the B12N content. The downside is Texas is getting the first 15 million the B12N earns every year. No other way its happening in the current environment. That's why the 2 schools selected will be based entirely on their ability to provide subscribers.

The reason I wasn't because I think you are wrong about feasibility, to the contrary I agree, the LHN and a B12N are incompatible. I just don't think Texas is giving up the LHN or "folding" it into a B12N, because on the other hand, there is no way a B12N provides any kind of serious benefits to the other schools if Texas is skimming the first $15m off the top, which is what Texas surely would demand to do that.

And, despite Boren's seeming "all for one" stance, if somehow Texas were to negotiate that deal, Oklahoma would want to do the same, asking for say $12m off the top, and then what do you have left for the other 8 (or 10) schools? Not much.

So the real issue here isn't the existence of the LHN per se, it's that Texas is not willing to share the dollar value of its brand with its conference mates. And it just isn't willing to do that.

Well that's just it--Texas isn't "sharing" any dollars. They get the first 15 million, then the sharing starts. That said, any Big-12 Network would pay start up costs, which would far exceed 15 million a year anyway.

In terms of value, the LHN only has about 9 million subscribers---mostly in Texas. A Big12 Network would have MUCH wider carriage and would receive a MUCH larger fee. The LHN gets .28 cents a month in Texas. I think its 2 cents a month outside of Texas. A Big12 Network would be more like .75-$1 for in state rate---maybe .25 to .35 cents out of state.

Lets say their subscriber base lies somewhere between the Pac-12 and SEC Network---which is a reasonable supposition. That would put them around 30 to 40 million subscribers. 30 million subscribers with 2/3 in-state would net them around 8 million a school after paying UT the first 15 million (that's assuming a 75 cents a month rate in state and just 25 cents out of state) and splitting the rest 50-50 with ESPN. So, even using low figures, it actually looks pretty viable.

Good point, but ... do you think Texas would just want that $15m or would they want some of that newer B12N largesse as well?

(03-08-2016 09:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

That's the only way a Big-12 Network is feasible. You cant have a B12 Network as a complete start up with NO UT content. With a conversion, start up costs are nil---and the UT content is included in the B12N content. The downside is Texas is getting the first 15 million the B12N earns every year. No other way its happening in the current environment. That's why the 2 schools selected will be based entirely on their ability to provide subscribers.

The reason I wasn't because I think you are wrong about feasibility, to the contrary I agree, the LHN and a B12N are incompatible. I just don't think Texas is giving up the LHN or "folding" it into a B12N, because on the other hand, there is no way a B12N provides any kind of serious benefits to the other schools if Texas is skimming the first $15m off the top, which is what Texas surely would demand to do that.

And, despite Boren's seeming "all for one" stance, if somehow Texas were to negotiate that deal, Oklahoma would want to do the same, asking for say $12m off the top, and then what do you have left for the other 8 (or 10) schools? Not much.

So the real issue here isn't the existence of the LHN per se, it's that Texas is not willing to share the dollar value of its brand with its conference mates. And it just isn't willing to do that.

Well that's just it--Texas isn't "sharing" any dollars. They get the first 15 million, then the sharing starts. That said, any Big-12 Network would pay start up costs, which would far exceed 15 million a year anyway.

In terms of value, the LHN only has about 9 million subscribers---mostly in Texas. A Big12 Network would have MUCH wider carriage and would receive a MUCH larger fee. The LHN gets .28 cents a month in Texas. I think its 2 cents a month outside of Texas. A Big12 Network would be more like .75-$1 for in state rate---maybe .25 to .35 cents out of state.

Lets say their subscriber base lies somewhere between the Pac-12 and SEC Network---which is a reasonable supposition. That would put them around 30 to 40 million subscribers. 30 million subscribers with 2/3 in-state would net them around 8 million a school after paying UT the first 15 million (that's assuming a 75 cents a month rate in state and just 25 cents out of state) and splitting the rest 50-50 with ESPN. So, even using low figures, it actually looks pretty viable.

Good point, but ... do you think Texas would just want that $15m or would they want some of that newer B12N largesse as well?

I'm just shooting in the dark, but I'm guessing that the exposure (literally UTexas programming around the clock) is worth a HUGE amount to the Horns.

I imagine that getting them to move on that would be extremely expensive.

(03-08-2016 09:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 12:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 07:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

That's the only way a Big-12 Network is feasible. You cant have a B12 Network as a complete start up with NO UT content. With a conversion, start up costs are nil---and the UT content is included in the B12N content. The downside is Texas is getting the first 15 million the B12N earns every year. No other way its happening in the current environment. That's why the 2 schools selected will be based entirely on their ability to provide subscribers.

The reason I wasn't because I think you are wrong about feasibility, to the contrary I agree, the LHN and a B12N are incompatible. I just don't think Texas is giving up the LHN or "folding" it into a B12N, because on the other hand, there is no way a B12N provides any kind of serious benefits to the other schools if Texas is skimming the first $15m off the top, which is what Texas surely would demand to do that.

And, despite Boren's seeming "all for one" stance, if somehow Texas were to negotiate that deal, Oklahoma would want to do the same, asking for say $12m off the top, and then what do you have left for the other 8 (or 10) schools? Not much.

So the real issue here isn't the existence of the LHN per se, it's that Texas is not willing to share the dollar value of its brand with its conference mates. And it just isn't willing to do that.

Well that's just it--Texas isn't "sharing" any dollars. They get the first 15 million, then the sharing starts. That said, any Big-12 Network would pay start up costs, which would far exceed 15 million a year anyway.

In terms of value, the LHN only has about 9 million subscribers---mostly in Texas. A Big12 Network would have MUCH wider carriage and would receive a MUCH larger fee. The LHN gets .28 cents a month in Texas. I think its 2 cents a month outside of Texas. A Big12 Network would be more like .75-$1 for in state rate---maybe .25 to .35 cents out of state.

Lets say their subscriber base lies somewhere between the Pac-12 and SEC Network---which is a reasonable supposition. That would put them around 30 to 40 million subscribers. 30 million subscribers with 2/3 in-state would net them around 8 million a school after paying UT the first 15 million (that's assuming a 75 cents a month rate in state and just 25 cents out of state) and splitting the rest 50-50 with ESPN. So, even using low figures, it actually looks pretty viable.

Good point, but ... do you think Texas would just want that $15m or would they want some of that newer B12N largesse as well?

I gave them the first 15 million plus a full Big-12 share in my calculation. In other words they got 23 million, everyone else got 8 million.

(03-08-2016 08:32 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:26 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 07:36 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  By deliver, I meant would get a conference network into that specific area (the overwhelming reason why the Big Ten chose Rutgers). "Reach" would have been a better word to use.

Read what he said. It was the combination that got BTN in NYC. Texas hasn't even gotten Comcast signed up for the Longhorn Network in Houston. The idea that UConn without any help can bring in NYC is just not realistic. Rutgers wouldn't have gotten a Big 12 network in NYC. It took the rest combined with Rutgers to have a critical mass.

A conference network is more about non-football sports. In NYC the most followed college sport (by far) is basketball. You are obviously unfamiliar with NYC if you think UCONN basketball couldn't bring a hypothetical Big 12 Network to the area.

BTW I've seen your anti-UCONN tirades on Shaggy. No surprise that you are continuing that bias here.

Its called realism. And its football that gets carriage. Basketball fills in nicely, but football is the driver.

Please explain how a handful of the lowest profile FB games in the conference drive carriage more than the vast amounts of non FB programming that would be shown. FB is huge in branding and the brands drive carriage too, so it's certainly part of the equation.

You don't understand because your school has only recently started playing football seriously. Basketball's value is mostly tied up in the tourney. There may be more "other stuff," but football drives carriage.

(03-08-2016 11:30 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 11:25 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 10:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:24 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:27 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that it could be a full merger, 6 tops. 5 IF ND came all in. I would say Texas, Oklahoma, TT/Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas & WV. Broken into a 4x5.

West- Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, TT/Baylor

North- Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, WV/ND

South- FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, WF

East- NC, Duke, NC State, Virginia, VT

3 if ND comes in. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas. Add WVU if ND says No.

That would be preferable but I think they would insist on bringing friends with them to more regionalize their division. They could get solo offers anywhere & so the ACC will have to invite a group in order to be considered. That's the only advantage that the ACC has.

Wouldn't Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas be considered "Bringing friends" basically the top 3 programs in the Big 12 and border rivals in Football and Basketball

Yeah I don't really know what he's talking about. I doubt Texas would really need more than one other regional team to go with them. If Texas came with Oklahoma and Kansas, it'd be fine.

You don't think that Oklahoma would want Oklahoma State? Or that Texas would like to have another Texas school? Especially for their Olympic sports? Wouldn't they find a regional division more appealing than being stuck in a division with teams that they don't have a history with? Wouldn't their fans prefer rivals over strangers? The SEC can offer Arkansas, A&M, LSU & Missouri. The closest regional school that the ACC can offer is Louisville & there's no history there.

(03-08-2016 09:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:32 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:26 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-08-2016 08:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Read what he said. It was the combination that got BTN in NYC. Texas hasn't even gotten Comcast signed up for the Longhorn Network in Houston. The idea that UConn without any help can bring in NYC is just not realistic. Rutgers wouldn't have gotten a Big 12 network in NYC. It took the rest combined with Rutgers to have a critical mass.

A conference network is more about non-football sports. In NYC the most followed college sport (by far) is basketball. You are obviously unfamiliar with NYC if you think UCONN basketball couldn't bring a hypothetical Big 12 Network to the area.

BTW I've seen your anti-UCONN tirades on Shaggy. No surprise that you are continuing that bias here.

Its called realism. And its football that gets carriage. Basketball fills in nicely, but football is the driver.

Please explain how a handful of the lowest profile FB games in the conference drive carriage more than the vast amounts of non FB programming that would be shown. FB is huge in branding and the brands drive carriage too, so it's certainly part of the equation.

You don't understand because your school has only recently started playing football seriously. Basketball's value is mostly tied up in the tourney. There may be more "other stuff," but football drives carriage.

I remember reading an article some years ago where Jim Delaney, after some early struggles started to see the fruits of the BIGN, he sent a letter and a bottle of Champaign to the head of ESPN thanking him for declining to help the BIG with their network. In that article I believe, he mentioned how it was basketball that really made the difference in getting carriage for the BIGN. Because they put so many of the higher profile games on the BIGN rather than regular cable and tv, and lots of people were complaining to their cable tv companies about not being able to see their teams play.

(03-07-2016 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 08:43 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 07:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  3) If the LHN can be converted to a B12 Network, the B12 will need 2 more teams in order to supply enough content for a B12 network. Adding 2 more teams adds 2 more football games (for a total of12) plus 12 more basketball games (for a total of 72).

This struck me as ironic that a network that only has one school now would need to add two schools to have enough content to pull it off. They'd be adding 9 schools already, that should be plenty of content!!!

To your other points #1,2,4,5 however, "spot on" and there is definitely an opening for expansion here.

That's the problem with the LHN. Limited content.

How many times can you watch a repeat of the 2006 Rose Bowl? I swear that's on a dozen time a week. Even with the 2 extra schools the network will still only have access to 12 football games a year (mostly involving FCS opponents).

Mack Brown watches it everyday and then calls up Vince Young to thank him.

Lets go with the WIIFM (What's In It For Me) Texas Edition.

The LHN COULD be converted into a B12 network...sure. But what's in it for them? They currently get $15 mil/year until 2024 or something like that. Would the B12 network pay more? I don't believe so.

I guess you could say the B12 network will keep the conference together (and OU from bolting with KU or etc.) but really, does Texas even care? I don't believe so. They have a golden parachute and can go to any conference they want at any time.