The Tigers are working on their own TV network. Would any Big East school consider starting their own TV network? Who could pull it off?

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/27/204...rrive.html

Missouri TV network could arrive sooner than later
By MIKE DeARMOND
The Kansas City Star

COLUMBIA | You don’t have to cast about very far to run across speculation that the Big 12 Conference is alive today because Texas could not get assurances from the Pacific-10, or possibly other conferences, that it could solely profit from formation of its own television network.

The Big 12 promised exactly that.


But do not expect Texas to be the only Big 12 school to combine Internet video capabilities with expanded cable clearances and even a dedicated television channel into a 24-hour, seven-day a week potential revenue gusher. In fact, expect just about every current member of the Big 12 to do exactly that. And, according to officials at Missouri, to do it as quickly as possible.

“I would like to think that within five years we could be a very serious player with all the resources that we think that we have here,” said Chad Moller, Mizzou assistant athletic director for media relations. “I want to dream big. I think that’s absolutely a goal that we need to establish and try to shoot for.”

Moller and other athletic department officials held a brainstorming session last week that grew out of a statement made by University of Missouri system president Gary Forsee after the Big 12 stayed together.

“Why shouldn’t there be a Mizzou Network?” Forsee said. “Why shouldn’t we take advantage of the great history that we have and monetize that?

“We have the best journalism school in the world. I suspect that would be a fantastic opportunity for them.”

The building of a Missouri Network would go far beyond having students provide content to an enterprise in which Moller contends content may not be as important, initially, as the method of delivery.

Missouri already has an Internet content stream — Mizzou All-Access — which for $9.95 per month or $80 per year provides live and archived game action in sports such as softball, baseball and gymnastics, as well as news conferences, some of those offerings free of charge.

“We stream a lot of games,” said Kevin Fletcher, coordinator of online operations for Mizzou All-Access. “Really, the only games we don’t stream are football games. We have not streamed swimming, we have not streamed tennis and we haven’t streamed any regular-season track.”

Fletcher estimated that the monthly All-Access subscriber list is currently around 500 with another 100 or so paying the yearly fee.

CBS Sports has just come on board and by August will be providing an updated video player as well as more access to archived events that eventually could include replays — using school rather than national network footage — of such events as the infamous “Fifth Down Game” or the 1961 Orange Bowl.

However, most fans, Fletcher anticipated, would consider a Mizzou Network to include a dedicated TV channel available through their cable provider in high definition.

Currently, any Missouri men’s basketball game that is not shown on one of the Big 12 Conference or national network packages is available via the Missouri Sports Network on various cable TV stations around the state. In Kansas City, that is generally on Metro Sports on the Time Warner Cable system.

Moller said that even if the school and its longtime media rights-holding partner Learfield Sports do introduce a dedicated channel for a Mizzou Network, it would most likely be a cable offering. Over-the-air stations — while available to a wider audience — are generally affiliated with one of the national networks and are unable or unwilling to bypass network shows.

The Learfield-Mizzou partnership in the last year produced a $4 million profit for the school. Learfield also handles media rights — telecast fees, advertising and other marketing — for more than 50 colleges and conferences in 31 states.

Included are Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

How much profit is to be made by each school is, of course, a prime consideration for any school looking to establish its own network. How much is enough? And how long might it take to get there?

“We’ve not gotten to that level of detail yet,” Moller said. “We’re still talking about what we need to find out and who do we need to go to.”

The University of Texas has been studying the possibilities for at least three years, and perhaps longer. According to the Dallas Morning News, Texas could be the first school to get its own, dedicated cable venture up and running.

“There is a lot of ground to cover and so many different ways of doing it,” Texas A.D. DeLoss Dodds told the Morning News. “We plan to start slow and small and build as we go.”

The anticipated launch of Everything Bevo? Perhaps as early as the summer of 2011, according to the Morning News.

Subscriber fees through cable operators for the Big Ten Network range from 10 cents per TV household in non-Big Ten states to 70 cents in states with a Big Ten school.

Referencing information provided by TV industry analysts, the Morning News reported Texas might get between eight and 10 cents per subscriber in the state. Homes outside Texas might bring only two to three cents per subscriber each month.

With an industry-estimated 1.6 million TV households in the major Missouri markets of St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield, at an estimated nickel-per-month subscription profit per household, a Missouri Network would bring in more than $80,000 per month just from those areas, or $960,000 per year. And that would be a baseline figure, absent any revenues from any TV or Internet advertising.

So far in the Big 12, only Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne has expressed much opposition to trying a school TV network. Byrne has contended that A&M might be better served by developing an increased Internet-based platform.

At Missouri, Moller cautions that development of a dedicated-channel approach could be “a very tall order.”

“I want to dream big and believe that we can do something along those lines,” he said. “I believe we have the resources and the people and the energy to get to that point.”

To reach Mike DeArmond, call 816-234-4353 or send e-mail to mdearmond@kcstar.com



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/27/204...z0sFG4JVWc

I believe there are several programs in the BE who could get there own tv network. Uconn, Syracuse, WV, Pitt, Louisville, and I believe Rutgers could all do it.

I'm sure Mizzou COULD start a small regional cable network...in Missouri. I'm not sure how much further than that they'd be able to get people to subscribe. A network can work for Texas because:

a. Its a big state with alot of people.
b. They have a national following.

Are those things present with Missouri? Ehhh....

When the Memphis Grizzlies first came to the Mid-South they explored their own network and it got a tepid reaction. They approached Memphis and Arkansas State about providing content to round it out but they never really put the finances together.

If they had been smart (and I think there is adequate proof the Grizz franchise isn't one of the more well run teams) they would have moved from approaching it as their network and licensing some content to a partnership model it might have had a better chance because then the schools would have been using their contacts and influence.

Down the road, you may see a school or schools that cannot create a viable network entering partnerships with weaker pro franchises that cannot support a network on their own either.

I think Syracuse would probably have the best chance of pulling it off out of the Big East teams.

Only BCS team in the state of New York drawing off Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, and of course New York City.
Year round sport programs of interest; football, basketball (NC Quality), and Lacrosse (NC Quality).
Partnership opportunities with area minor league sports.
Strong support in other major cities Boston, Jersey, Washington DC, South Florida, LA, etc. (just watch away bball games from last year, we were taking over arenas)

I have a feeling that the "having your own TV network" concept will soon jump the shark.

Coming to a public access channel near you - the Appalachean State Network!!

Agreed; it's probably not for everyone. Conventional wisdom says that the most successful school networks would be one for large state schools that don't have instate competition. Mizzou may have a shot.

Missouri is the UAB of the Big 12.

(06-29-2010 09:39 AM)GPSKnight Wrote:  Missouri is the UAB of the Big 12.

Nope...that would be Iowa State.

When was the last time Missouri won anything, pulled off a big win, or made national headlines?

(06-29-2010 09:47 AM)GPSKnight Wrote:  When was the last time Missouri won anything, pulled off a big win, or made national headlines?

They've won the Big 12 North a couple of times and in 2007 they were one game away from playing for the National title. They've won the Cotton Bowl and some other bowls over the past 5 years. Comparing them to UAB who has a horrible record is really a poor comparison.

Why bother. But I am glad these schools are doing it. These individual school networks are going to have serious backlash when you start forcing people to pay money for access to 2-3 football game a year. After that, a Big East Network will look like be a bargain. Plus, in reality, as long as every member school brings in a particular area, or combine to help bring one (NY area schools), you can make more with a conference network, as you can charge more per subsciber than you probably could with a local school-only channel. Granted more populated areas will supplement a bit the less populated areas, but for the most part, our lesser populated area schools (WV, Pitt, Cinc, and UL) are a majority of the the meat an potatoes of the conference, so that should not be a problem. But with a conference network you will at least have worthwhile, live, entertaining programming that draws decent to good ratings for six months out of the year.

Besides, does anyone realize we are in the 21st century? Networks have mulple feeds. Why not have it like Fox Sports Net does, where they have lots of national programming, but each individual network picks and chooses what to air, and also airs its own programming. Sometimes they air the national game, sometimes a local game (like MLB baseball or NBA basketball). Each school can have control over the programming in their market, so when multiple games are on, the school chooses what to have on. That way, each school can televise all of their own non-revenue sports, selected other teams games, and share basketball and football capacities, all branded under the Big East Network umbrella. It allows schools to show as much of their own sports as possible, while having a HUGE library of other sports to show. It also allows schools to not have the expense of televising every sport just to fill up a network slate, but at the same time maximizing ratings by showing as many games of local interest as possible.

It is the best of both worlds. Besides Big East schools should not try to be greedy like the Big XII schools, and are much better off workign together, than trying to go alone.

(06-29-2010 09:47 AM)GPSKnight Wrote:  When was the last time Missouri won anything, pulled off a big win, or made national headlines?

Iam pretty sure they have been making national headlines due to Big Ten Expansion for the last three or four months.

(06-29-2010 10:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2010 09:47 AM)GPSKnight Wrote:  When was the last time Missouri won anything, pulled off a big win, or made national headlines?

Iam pretty sure they have been making national headlines due to Big Ten Expansion for the last three or four months.

But I seriously doubt the headlines they saw were the ones they wanted to see...

(06-29-2010 10:06 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  But I seriously doubt the headlines they saw were the ones they wanted to see...

Hey now. I never said anything about positive press. Just press.

(06-29-2010 08:37 AM)KnightTower Wrote:  I'm sure Mizzou COULD start a small regional cable network...in Missouri. I'm not sure how much further than that they'd be able to get people to subscribe. A network can work for Texas because:

a. Its a big state with alot of people.
b. They have a national following.

Are those things present with Missouri? Ehhh....

I think there are only a handful of schools who could do this properly and its a big if at that. Texas has the best chance. Probably can get their network on in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and maybe New Mexico and Louisiana too.

What has a much better chance of working out for Texas is a joint network with Texas A&M and Texas Tech. Having more live inventory is always a better idea. This isn't a pro-baseball team starting an RSN where they have like 120 games a year to put on it plus around half of the other games are theirs to produce and sell to an over-the-air partner anyway. There's a reason NESN, MASN, YES and SNY are so successful after all. All YES had to do was bring in the Nets for winter programming and SNY brought in Big East football and basketball for fall/winter programming. NESN is majority owned by the Red Sox with the rest being primarily owned by the Bruins which complement each other nicely for year-round live programming.

(06-29-2010 09:47 AM)GPSKnight Wrote:  When was the last time Missouri won anything, pulled off a big win, or made national headlines?

I'm certainly not defending Mizzou, but they are the state school with a large rabid fanbase who would pay to see their team. The more successful they are, the more folks would want to see their team. But if they are plain old mediocre as in Mizzous' case, they will always have their base fanbase.