(02-16-2017 03:58 PM)HuskyU Wrote:
(02-16-2017 03:31 PM)p23570 Wrote:
(02-16-2017 03:20 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:
The divisions should be setup to give OU and UT the best opportunity to be highly ranked and not have a rematch of the RRR. Put the biggest brands (OU, KU, UT) in the biggest markets in the East.
(02-16-2017 12:18 PM)p23570 Wrote:
(02-16-2017 11:55 AM)billybobby777 Wrote: You've stated elsewhere that you live in Mountain country. You know why BYU will never be in the PAC. That's impossible.
I agree that BYU will never join the PAC. I never suggested BYU join the PAC. I suggested the Big 12 add BYU and UConn.
My bad. What 6 team divisions would you have for big 12 plus UCONN and BYU. That would be a difficult geographic split.
East/West with permanent crossover game for FB and BB.
Sold. Write up the contract p23570.
Will be interesting to see how it all works out.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on confernce networks it seems as far as where the income from networks are derived. This is where I see BYU and Uconn thriving as they both have a lot of confernce network type content that people actually watch.
Most of us understand that confernce network income is not derived from the 1-2 crappy football games and some coaches shows a team provides for the network. We understand that year round content that provides subscriber income as well as advertising income. This means a dozen WVB , BB, and WBB games for BYU. This means BB, WBB, Baseball, Soccer, etc for UConn. In that sense I think BYU And UConn provide value as they have a lot of content like that which people will watch and that content is in many ways a nice compliment to sports which are not popular in the big 12 like WVB, WBB, and Soccer.
Some will tell you that valuation for conference network is 80% FB but that simply is not true.
LHN is a perfect example. ESPN does not pay UT 15 million a season for a couple of crappy football games. Anyone who tells you that is clueless. UT gets 15 million per season becasue of year round subscriber fees and advertising, most of which is outside football season and outside football content.
I think what some miss is the difference. T1/2 contracts are about quality with the biggest matchups bringing most of the value. Conference networks are much different as they typically do not have high quality content and it's more about quantity.
Another huge difference in T-1/2 TV contracts is conference get paid by ESPN/Fox and in the PACN case they own the network so these are completely different situations.
The reality is the BIg 12 can add 2 schools to the t-1/2 contract at the current payout so that is a non issue. Not even worth discussing as we know the deal. The issue is content for conference networks. IF the Big 12 could form a partnership with the PAC conference utilizing the t-3 content for BYU And UConn to start with and build upon that by working with Fox or simply waiting out the current Fox contracts and then I see a huge upside.
The perfect scenario would be working with the PAC, Big 12, and Fox. PAC has a network, Fox has lots of t-3 content, and the Big 12 has the t-3 content form both expansion schools and a CCG to bargain with.
Let Fox have the CCG and put it on big FOX. Fox moves some current members t-3 content over to the PACN along with BYU And UConn t-3 content. Let the PACN absorb all that and create a couple of regional channels. PACN is instantly picked up by all major TV providers as viewer #'s are increased in the existing footprint and expanded into the central and eastern time zones and everyone is happy.