(05-17-2015 05:28 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:04 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  The network was a bribe and is the reason it would pay out what it regardless of it's subscriptions. That being said UT has no motivation to do anything until the end of the current contract cycle. There is a consolidation of content going on and that's why I think the acc grew. It was a hedge. Espn is probably going to lose the b10. If they do I thnk fox also goes hard after the b12. Then espn strips the core properties and sends them to the PAC. The texoma brands are worth the most and they will be sheltered in an espn conf. After that I think fox starts a network and will invite mostly eastern time zone population centers to make up for the lack of TVs in the the other markets. I think the AAC loses members then. Jmo

This I could see happening. Except about the PAC. I could see where UCF, USF,Cincinnati Tulane and Memphis maybe a New Mexico type.(long shot) would be very favorable as it brings new areas and gets into some new states. Nothing against Tulsa and Houston but I just think the markets are already saturated. Unless a Texas left or Oklahoma then it just doesn't make much sense. Longhorn network would morph into bug whatever network.

So UConn is too far and out for the Big 12?

(05-17-2015 08:39 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  What is all this 'ESPN saved the big 12' crap?

The LHN is the reason the big 12 almost imploded....

No it isn't Texas A&M was invited to join with Texas but said no they wanted to go to the SEC

Reading that pretty interesting article...couldn't help but think almost instantly of 2 ESPN Failure:

ESPN's Cell Phone (Mobile ESPN)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkg8OU8Ia8w

ESPN Cold Pizza...their "Oprah" show in the AM (Wow....was that awful!)

Not everything ESPN touches turns to gold.

(05-17-2015 04:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:24 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:36 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  ESPN has the leverage here. Tell Texas they either make it into the Big 12 Network or the channel folds. That's literally the only options they have at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ESPN has no leverage--UT has a contract. UT gets their money come hell or high water, unless ESPN can find a way to make UT *want* the LHN to go away. ESPN could shut down the LHN, but they'd be in breach of contract and still have to pay UT.

That said, ESPN and UT didn't exactly plan on a channel no one wants and no one watches. It's an irritation to the UT coaches, who have to produce content whose only audience is other schools' film rooms.

EDIT: Something I hadn't noticed before--if the LHN is pulling in $22M in Texas from subscribers, then it's making an operating profit for ESPN. $22M - $15M is $7M. The "ESPN has lots its shirt on the LHN" includes the startup costs for the network, which is true from an accounting perspective, but meaningless from a going-forward perspective. The money spent to build LHN Studios or whatever is gone whether or not ESPN keeps the LHN or shuts it down or whatever. It's not like ESPN can get a do-over on those costs.

Even with the $25 million they are making, I am not exactly certain they are making much money. Remember that they have to buy content at times. They have paid over a million each year to get an additional football game.
Then they have operational expenses which run in the millions and of courses taxes on all of that... but for arguments sake, let say they are making $5 million a year... [b]with over $40 million invested it will take them 8 years to just break even.[/b]
Thats a bad investment all the way around.

My point is, though, that the $40M is GONE. The $40M is only relevant if you're deciding today whether to start the LHN. But they're not. The question is, are LHN expenses in FY 2015 more or less than LHN revenues in 2015. It doesn't matter how much ESPN spent to build the studios or whatever. (Except in so far as the ESPN honchos that made the decision are still invested in it.)

Unless there is a time machine in Bristol somewhere, the choice is A) continue to operate the LHN or B) shut down the LHN. Since the network is making an operating profit (before deductions for debt, taxes, etc) the network is going to keep operating.

The only way the LHN would go away is if
A) ESPN figured out a way to make Texas want the LHN to go away
B) ESPN were losing so much money on the LHN that they would pay Texas to let them out of the contract.

Yes that money is a sunk cost and cant be recouped but it used when figuring your ROI.
Long term, they may very well look at this channel and decide that just recouping costs isnt an effective use of their money. By converting it to a PAC12 network then it will make a ton of money and it will also allow them to proceed on moving other teams where they want to be.

(05-17-2015 06:22 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 05:28 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:04 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  The network was a bribe and is the reason it would pay out what it regardless of it's subscriptions. That being said UT has no motivation to do anything until the end of the current contract cycle. There is a consolidation of content going on and that's why I think the acc grew. It was a hedge. Espn is probably going to lose the b10. If they do I thnk fox also goes hard after the b12. Then espn strips the core properties and sends them to the PAC. The texoma brands are worth the most and they will be sheltered in an espn conf. After that I think fox starts a network and will invite mostly eastern time zone population centers to make up for the lack of TVs in the the other markets. I think the AAC loses members then. Jmo

This I could see happening. Except about the PAC. I could see where UCF, USF,Cincinnati Tulane and Memphis maybe a New Mexico type.(long shot) would be very favorable as it brings new areas and gets into some new states. Nothing against Tulsa and Houston but I just think the markets are already saturated. Unless a Texas left or Oklahoma then it just doesn't make much sense. Longhorn network would morph into bug whatever network.

Depending what areas of US the saturated part you basing your point across is a point very much loudly overrated... Now this, having small town schools with absolutely ZERO market at all like many presently in the so called p5 who literally just bring a bag of peanuts and yet everyone says you must bring $15-20 million to the table in order to be invited. lol

Nothing against you but that's pretty much how I feel when someone mentions areas being saturated.

And too, I guess ESPN had the same business view/mindset and thought Texas was saturdated and paid dearly $$$ for the LHN. Brilliant.

Nothing against Houston or Tulsa. In my opinion the big twelve lost Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri. That's three states they lost they pick up WV. Sounds like they need more states to get eyeballs or potential eyeballs to sell to some network. At the end of the day I'm just a fan.

(05-17-2015 06:22 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 05:28 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:04 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  The network was a bribe and is the reason it would pay out what it regardless of it's subscriptions. That being said UT has no motivation to do anything until the end of the current contract cycle. There is a consolidation of content going on and that's why I think the acc grew. It was a hedge. Espn is probably going to lose the b10. If they do I thnk fox also goes hard after the b12. Then espn strips the core properties and sends them to the PAC. The texoma brands are worth the most and they will be sheltered in an espn conf. After that I think fox starts a network and will invite mostly eastern time zone population centers to make up for the lack of TVs in the the other markets. I think the AAC loses members then. Jmo

This I could see happening. Except about the PAC. I could see where UCF, USF,Cincinnati Tulane and Memphis maybe a New Mexico type.(long shot) would be very favorable as it brings new areas and gets into some new states. Nothing against Tulsa and Houston but I just think the markets are already saturated. Unless a Texas left or Oklahoma then it just doesn't make much sense. Longhorn network would morph into bug whatever network.

Depending what areas of US the saturated part you basing your point across is a point very much loudly overrated... Now this, having small town schools with absolutely ZERO market at all like many presently in the so called p5 who literally just bring a bag of peanuts and yet everyone says you must bring $15-20 million to the table in order to be invited. lol

Nothing against you but that's pretty much how I feel when someone mentions areas being saturated.

And too, I guess ESPN had the same business view/mindset and thought Texas was saturdated and paid dearly $$$ for the LHN. Brilliant.

This is one of the big misconceptions on the net. Each team in the Big 12 got somewhere around $25 million last year. Adding two schools would need $50 million BUT a championship game has been estimated to be around $20 million.

That leaves $30 million between two schools, or roughly $15 million. Given, I am not certain which school that is out there that they would pay that much for it and obviously the Big 12 has shown no signs at all of wanting to add anybody.

Truth is, were all in the AAC until either takes leaves, or the LHN fails and is converted.



nice part is, we only have about 3 years before we start hearing some numbers on our renegotiation. If were all still here and have 7 years of stability, we may actually get a decent number...which will be a joke in comparison to the P5 but should be much better than the rest of the Gs.

Moving into a new market adds value. It adds TV value -- see Texas AM and the SEC's Network. It adds recruiting value. So, IMO, this isn't as much about up front money as it's about long term strategy.

(05-17-2015 08:39 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  What is all this 'ESPN saved the big 12' crap?

The LHN is the reason the big 12 almost imploded....

No it wasn't. The b12 almost imploded because of unequal revenue sharing. Texas wanted to do a network with a and m and was rebuffed. They also wanted Nebraska to be part of it. Then everyone started leaving. Texas and company were going to go to the PAC and were sued by Baylor. The PAC didn't want ok st and this offered a way to keep tx happy and the b12 together. Everyone got access to their own tier three rights. Tx was the only one who could justify going it quasi alone. The original plan was to show tx hs football as an out because it rolled up to the ut system. Then everyone else started complaining and blocked the hs part because of recruiting advantage concerns.

Big picture any AAC team wanting to move up needs to hope for the LHN to become the B12 Network. That would mean more balance, exposure, and potential for the Conference. That said, any team promoted will get a raise compared to AAC money. The only teams bringing a new market (State) to the B12 are ECU (NC), Cincy (Ohio), UCONN (Conn), Memphis (TN), and UCF/USF (FL), Tulane (LA), Temple (PA). Some MWC teams would qualify as well.

Culturally and Appeal Wise (Southern, Football First, Good TV ratings), the best fits are ECU, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, and USF. No offense Cincy, UCONN, and Temple but you are Yankee schools :).

In terms of State population size it is a collective wash. Again, i think the B12 goes for "new markets with proven TV ratings" and "similar cultural identity to other B12 schools". ECU and Cincy and UCF had some of the best ratings for the AAC this year.

(05-17-2015 08:53 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 08:39 PM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  What is all this 'ESPN saved the big 12' crap?

The LHN is the reason the big 12 almost imploded....

No it isn't Texas A&M was invited to join with Texas but said no they wanted to go to the SEC

yup. the original network was to be UT and TAMU. TAMU reneged because they were already looking east.

(05-17-2015 05:28 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:04 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  The network was a bribe and is the reason it would pay out what it regardless of it's subscriptions. That being said UT has no motivation to do anything until the end of the current contract cycle. There is a consolidation of content going on and that's why I think the acc grew. It was a hedge. Espn is probably going to lose the b10. If they do I thnk fox also goes hard after the b12. Then espn strips the core properties and sends them to the PAC. The texoma brands are worth the most and they will be sheltered in an espn conf. After that I think fox starts a network and will invite mostly eastern time zone population centers to make up for the lack of TVs in the the other markets. I think the AAC loses members then. Jmo

This I could see happening. Except about the PAC. I could see where UCF, USF,Cincinnati Tulane and Memphis maybe a New Mexico type.(long shot) would be very favorable as it brings new areas and gets into some new states. Nothing against Tulsa and Houston but I just think the markets are already saturated. Unless a Texas left or Oklahoma then it just doesn't make much sense. Longhorn network would morph into bug whatever network.

I think anyone of those schools could go. Speaking for Memphis only you're looking at a top 10 college TV market and a new one, a geographic fit, a huge basketball city, a top recruiting area, and now a good football program.

Really an amazing (and hilarious) story, UT really just shot themselves in the foot with the LHN. Articles like this are not flattering. IMHO this really illustrates how stupid and shortsighted the B12 is being, in 'not expanding because no candidate adds revenue'. This is the same moronic mistake the old Big East made, holding at 8 schools just to not further subdivide the BCS $$. If the B12 had a brain, NOW is the time to add a few solid markets and then watch those additions bloom over the next few years. The B1G knows Rutgers was no bright addition, but they are in the NYC market now forever!

Frankly, it's better for me that (if USF stays) no one else get poached from the AAC. But I have to be honest about the B12. Any of the usual mentioned AAC schools have various strengths and weaknesses as B12 candidates, but any would rapidly mature in the B12. Schools always benefit and usually rise up following a conference upgrade. Attendance gets better with superior opponents, recruiting gets better, TV $$ gets better... so it makes sense.

Amazing how shortsighted greed can make people... or, maybe they all know that 4xP conferences is coming, and is just making hay while the sun shines...

(05-18-2015 11:22 AM)Bull Wrote:  Really an amazing (and hilarious) story, UT really just shot themselves in the foot with the LHN. Articles like this are not flattering. IMHO this really illustrates how stupid and shortsighted the B12 is being, in 'not expanding because no candidate adds revenue'. This is the same moronic mistake the old Big East made, holding at 8 schools just to not further subdivide the BCS $$. If the B12 had a brain, NOW is the time to add a few solid markets and then watch those additions bloom over the next few years. The B1G knows Rutgers was no bright addition, but they are in the NYC market now forever!

Frankly, it's better for me that (if USF stays) no one else get poached from the AAC. But I have to be honest about the B12. Any of the usual mentioned AAC schools have various strengths and weaknesses as B12 candidates, but any would rapidly mature in the B12. Schools always benefit and usually rise up following a conference upgrade. Attendance gets better with superior opponents, recruiting gets better, TV $$ gets better... so it makes sense.

Amazing how shortsighted greed can make people... or, maybe they all know that 4xP conferences is coming, and is just making hay while the sun shines...

Couldnt agree more.... but everyone should see by now that the Big 12 REALLY doesnt want to expand.

I still believe many of us will be in the Big 12... but that will be after Texas leaves and In truth, I am ok with that. USF and many AAC schools have much more in common with WVU, TCU, Kansas, KSU, ISU and Baylor. Our revenue is closer and we could really compete with them.

Those 6 will be pissed about being in a conference with us but they wont have many options. THey will have to go toward a conference network setup. In the end, they will need markets and thats why I tend to think that USF/UCF, Memphis, Cinci will be some of the first to be invited. Tulane has a great market and their academics are in line with the others. Houston has a masive market and fits well since TCU and Baylor will need help carrying the Texas markets.

The real question will be if they go to 12/14 or 16.... and as far as Uconn. I still tend to think that long term they will end up in the ACC. Id love to keep them with us forever cause I think they have some of the classiest fans in the business but their future lays with a strong BBall conference on the east coast.

Hence why Texas will soon become a member of the Pac 16. Even if Texas is guaranteed $15 million/year, they can't watch A&M take $25-30 million/year. ESPN will make the pot sweeter to join the Pac 12, thus recovering the initial loss from the LHN and increasing Texas' profits. Win-Win.

(05-18-2015 11:56 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Hence why Texas will soon become a member of the Pac 16. Even if Texas is guaranteed $15 million/year, they can't watch A&M take $25-30 million/year. ESPN will make the pot sweeter to join the Pac 12, thus recovering the initial loss from the LHN and increasing Texas' profits. Win-Win.

I can see it I too think is very possible although I'm not sure how the big players like USC/Trojans UCLA and co. will feel about a I not WE mentality new member joining their comfortable table.

My guess Texas goes independent and mainly b/c UT's bully reputation.

It's been said that the B12 will not vote to dissolve via their GOR until ALL 8 have a P5 home... Either this is quite a bit downstream yet (likely), or some interesting legal wrangling...

I agree though, eventually (one way or another) it will probably be 4xP, with the B12 remnants, and several from the AAC (probably Boise too) forming the legit 5th conference. UT will make some move... articles like this are just the first tremors.

(05-18-2015 01:30 PM)Bull Wrote:  It's been said that the B12 will not vote to dissolve via their GOR until ALL 8 have a P5 home... Either this is quite a bit downstream yet (likely), or some interesting legal wrangling...

I agree though, eventually (one way or another) it will probably be 4xP, with the B12 remnants, and several from the AAC (probably Boise too) forming the legit 5th conference. UT will make some move... articles like this are just the first tremors.

The PAC will eventually gobble up the B12. The B10 & SEC will divide the ACC. Really there will be a P3.

(05-18-2015 07:37 AM)VirginiaPirate Wrote:  Big picture any AAC team wanting to move up needs to hope for the LHN to become the B12 Network. That would mean more balance, exposure, and potential for the Conference. That said, any team promoted will get a raise compared to AAC money. The only teams bringing a new market (State) to the B12 are ECU (NC), Cincy (Ohio), UCONN (Conn), Memphis (TN), and UCF/USF (FL), Tulane (LA), Temple (PA). Some MWC teams would qualify as well.

Culturally and Appeal Wise (Southern, Football First, Good TV ratings), the best fits are ECU, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, and USF. No offense Cincy, UCONN, and Temple but you are Yankee schools :).

In terms of State population size it is a collective wash. Again, i think the B12 goes for "new markets with proven TV ratings" and "similar cultural identity to other B12 schools". ECU and Cincy and UCF had some of the best ratings for the AAC this year.

I can see UCF or USF to gain Florida and Cincy or ECU to gain a WVU travel partner.

I also can see WVU moving to the AAC to reduce costs as well if it gets desperate enough.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

UT going Indy is likely the best option ESPN has. Would open up more flexibility to place more games in LHN.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-18-2015 05:49 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  UT going Indy is likely the best option ESPN has. Would open up more flexibility to place more games in LHN.

What big time program is going to give up a lucrative home game to go to Austin to play texas on the LHN?

This isn't like playing at Notre Dame where the game will be on NBC. You are talking about the LHN that ESPN struggled to get on a lot of Texas carriers when it first came out. I knew it took them a little while to get it on in Houston ....