If UT-Austin is at risk of being lost to the PAC or BIG, I wonder how creative ESPN can be in arranging a better landing spot for the Horns. ESPN has invested heavily in the SEC and ACC...so it has leverage in asking these conferences to be flexible. ESPN’s goals are to dominate the Texas TV market, while further promoting the SEC and ACC.

An ESPN friendly solution: Convince UT-Austin, OU and two tag-alongs (likely TTU plus KU) to join an SEC/ACC merger that will create geographically friendly divisions for alpha schools. A 32 school super conference with 4 tighter regional groups.

Proposed groupings for football:

West: UT-Austin, OU, TAMU, TTU, Ark, Mizzou, KU and Vandy
South: Ala, LSU, Aub, Tenn, Ole Miss, MSU, UK and Louisville
Atlantic: UF, UGA, FSU, Clemson, USC, GT, NC State and WFU
Coastal: Miami, UNC, Duke, UVA, VT, Pitt, Syracuse and BC

Horns would be joining the academic group of the SEC. Five AAU schools in their section of the SEC...would make it more palatable to follow the Aggies lead.

The Atlantic group is the key...Florida, Georgia and South Carolina schools would bring their rivalries within the division.

The TV revenue split has some form of keep-what-you-kill...so that Coastal schools invest more in football.

For sports other than football, two switches to create more regionality: 1) LSU and Vandy, and 2) Miami and NC State. In addition, Notre Dame is in the Coastal for Olympic sports.

What B12 Woes? They’re 3rd in revenue.

B12 woes results from UT-Austin and OU having viable alternatives to make more money by leaving their colleagues.

(05-16-2020 10:05 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  B12 woes results from UT-Austin and OU having viable alternatives to make more money by leaving their colleagues.

Texas is obligated to ESPN until 2031. It takes a mutual agreement to void the contract. I don't see that happening. The only place they could go where they would make more money which is not in the hands of ESPN would be the Big 10. I don't see Texas making that move because the Big 10 likely wouldn't take UT's buddies with them. The only other place they could go to make more money is the SEC.

Oklahoma is under no such obligation but if Texas couldn't travel with them they may not be as appealing to the Big 10.

Now if you want to speculate about ESPN essentially roping in its brands then 2 things have to happen. One is that ESPN will need to pick up the OU T3 rights in 2022 to go with the other Big 12 schools T3 rights they've already bought. Second they need to buy out FOX's T1 and T2 50% interest in the Big 12 by 2024 when they will be on the market. If they do those two things then they could orchestrate some kind of scheduling pact, if not an outright merger.

The question is at that point why would they want a merger? They will be paying the SEC exorbitantly, paying the ACC a lot less, and paying the Big 12 a middle figure. With a merger you would have to bump everyone's pay up to SEC levels to make it work otherwise the SEC will say no to anything that averages their revenue down.

So a scheduling project I could see. An outright merger no.

Now should not all Big 12, SEC or ACC schools not want to compete at the highest level due to costs or mission, then ESPN might consider a consolidation into something more like a 24 team league, but paying them handsomely for the content.

I don't think Texas will ever be lost to the Pac or Big. They will always find a home that's best for them. Like I have been saying, I enjoy the Big 12 as is minus Baylor. Going to be really interesting in seeing what unfolds over the next two years because the smoke will get thicker and thicker regarding alignment.
If Texas continues to improve in football, basketball and baseball, it will only make the conference more stable along with how ou has been playing. Can things change and UT head elsewhere? Sure it can, but it can also stay as is too.
I do think ESPN has a really big interest on the schools out west, and they could make some suggestions on a merger or expansion one way or another.

(05-17-2020 09:16 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I don't think Texas will ever be lost to the Pac or Big. They will always find a home that's best for them. Like I have been saying, I enjoy the Big 12 as is minus Baylor. Going to be really interesting in seeing what unfolds over the next two years because the smoke will get thicker and thicker regarding alignment.
If Texas continues to improve in football, basketball and baseball, it will only make the conference more stable along with how ou has been playing. Can things change and UT head elsewhere? Sure it can, but it can also stay as is too.
I do think ESPN has a really big interest on the schools out west, and they could make some suggestions on a merger or expansion one way or another.

Maybe you could trade Baylor and West Virginia to the SEC for Arkansas and Missouri. That would be a win-win.
The SEC needs another Texas school and Arkansas is not able to compete in the very tough SEC West while Missouri is just out of place.

The Longhorn Network isn't exactly a financial success for ESPN if some articles are to be believed:

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-thus-far/
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...twork.html

Assuming these stories paint an accurate picture: If the Big Ten wanted to invite Texas, I highly doubt ESPN would squash it because of the LHN, they'd rather just let UT go and not have to pay them for it anymore. Texas might not want to give up the LHN because they're the ones getting paid but if the Big Ten gives them more money to make up the difference, why not? Now of course whether or not ESPN wants a relationship with UT-Austin is a totally different question. Texas has struggled in football in recent years (Oklahoma's clearly been better in the Big 12) and that will lower their potential TV ratings/market value. But they're still Texas (the second most populous state) though.

(05-17-2020 01:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  The Longhorn Network isn't exactly a financial success for ESPN if some articles are to be believed:

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-thus-far/
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...twork.html

Assuming these stories paint an accurate picture: If the Big Ten wanted to invite Texas, I highly doubt ESPN would squash it because of the LHN, they'd rather just let UT go and not have to pay them for it anymore. Texas might not want to give up the LHN because they're the ones getting paid but if the Big Ten gives them more money to make up the difference, why not? Now of course whether or not ESPN wants a relationship with UT-Austin is a totally different question. Texas has struggled in football in recent years (Oklahoma's clearly been better in the Big 12) and that will lower their potential TV ratings/market value. But they're still Texas (the second most populous state) though.

They don't paint an accurate picture. Once the LHN got on DirectTV, it started breaking even. Now that isn't what ESPN had envisioned, but its not a disaster. And ESPN probably considers it a healthy investment. The mistakes they made with the LHN startup taught them what they needed to do to make the SECN a huge success. They didn't try to tie in the LHN with ESPN renewals. They made a point to do that with the SECN and to launch the rollout timed with renewals so they didn't have to wait 5 years (typical carriage agreement has been 5 years) to get major carriers. Certainly the SECN had more pull on its own, but it still needed ESPN to get reluctant cable carriers to unanimously bring it on board.

Now will ESPN renew in the same form? Probably not. Breakeven is not good enough. And cable penetration is shrinking. So the LHN is not a barrier. Its only got 11 years left. Even the Big 10 would probably allow UT to do a separate Tier III for the length of the LHN contract.

(05-17-2020 01:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  The Longhorn Network isn't exactly a financial success for ESPN if some articles are to be believed:

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-thus-far/
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...twork.html

Assuming these stories paint an accurate picture: If the Big Ten wanted to invite Texas, I highly doubt ESPN would squash it because of the LHN, they'd rather just let UT go and not have to pay them for it anymore. Texas might not want to give up the LHN because they're the ones getting paid but if the Big Ten gives them more money to make up the difference, why not? Now of course whether or not ESPN wants a relationship with UT-Austin is a totally different question. Texas has struggled in football in recent years (Oklahoma's clearly been better in the Big 12) and that will lower their potential TV ratings/market value. But they're still Texas (the second most populous state) though.

Texas is either the most profitable or the second most profitable school in terms of revenue generation year in and year out. That is the only justification ESPN needs to stick with Texas. It's what gives them their leverage and regardless of on field production keeps them the central piece in all of realignment. And you had better damn well believe that will hold ESPN's interest. Being the most highly recognized school in a state of 28 million doesn't hurt, but being nationally recognized and successful regardless of sports achievements makes them everybody's top choice.

There is no discussion beyond that. The LHN money was a tether to hold Bevo in the Disney pasture, end of story.

(05-17-2020 01:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  The Longhorn Network isn't exactly a financial success for ESPN if some articles are to be believed:

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-thus-far/
https://awfulannouncing.com/league-netwo...twork.html

Assuming these stories paint an accurate picture: If the Big Ten wanted to invite Texas, I highly doubt ESPN would squash it because of the LHN, they'd rather just let UT go and not have to pay them for it anymore. Texas might not want to give up the LHN because they're the ones getting paid but if the Big Ten gives them more money to make up the difference, why not? Now of course whether or not ESPN wants a relationship with UT-Austin is a totally different question. Texas has struggled in football in recent years (Oklahoma's clearly been better in the Big 12) and that will lower their potential TV ratings/market value. But they're still Texas (the second most populous state) though.

Thanks for the links.

If ESPN wanted to get out of the LHN agreement, I would think that could have major consequences on realignment.

I do not know if Texas has any interest in joining the Big10. If Texas is interested, it would seem very likely that they would want their neighbors to go with them. Their neighbors being OU, KU, and I am guessing Missouri. (The Big10 would undoubtedly prefer Notre Dame, but that is another story). That would put them in a division with OU, KU, Nebraska, Missouri, and Iowa. All former Big12 locations. Of course they would have rotating schedules with other conference teams.

Texas no longer has a Tech problem, thanks to A&M.

On the other hand, the Big10 may not be interested and ESPN may prefer to keep the LHN regardless of the cost, Texas being Texas

ESPN could improve the LHN network with actual content not just ESPN classic-ing the channel. Texas online media had a show where the football team were learning how to brand itself.. it was a several part series.. why on earth did they not show it on the LHN?

Also the NCAA is weak, LHN should just start airing THSFB games weekly and have a postgame show Friday nights.

**Edit** I also think that ESPN could always buy out LHN to facilitate a conference network or to allow them to join another conference..However I think the school will keep the LHN network regardless if ESPN does buy it out.

It would take a boatload of money for ESPN to buy out LHN. Texas as of 2018 got $10.98 million with an increase of 3% a year. That's money they get all to themselves. A Big 12 Conference third tier network would have to pay out more than ten times as much as that (assuming each member gets an equal share) for it to be worthwhile to ESPN to integrate the LHN into a Big 12 Network and then they're paying each member of the Little 8 the same $10.98M (plus interest) as they are Texas (and Oklahoma) for 3rd tier rights. Good luck with that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/...9bc811312f

As for the Big Ten allowing Texas to join and keep the LHN, as an alum of two Big Ten universities (Illinois and Penn State graduate school), I'd be very against it, it would be a deal breaker for me. If they can have 3rd tier rights and keep all of their money, why can't Penn State and why can't Illinois (OK, they wouldn't make much money)?

(05-17-2020 03:31 PM)schmolik Wrote:  It would take a boatload of money for ESPN to buy out LHN. Texas as of 2018 got $10.98 million with an increase of 3% a year. That's money they get all to themselves. A Big 12 Conference third tier network would have to pay out more than ten times as much as that (assuming each member gets an equal share) for it to be worthwhile to ESPN to integrate the LHN into a Big 12 Network and then they're paying each member of the Little 8 the same $10.98M (plus interest) as they are Texas (and Oklahoma) for 3rd tier rights. Good luck with that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/...9bc811312f

As for the Big Ten allowing Texas to join and keep the LHN, as an alum of two Big Ten universities (Illinois and Penn State graduate school), I'd be very against it, it would be a deal breaker for me. If they can have 3rd tier rights and keep all of their money, why can't Penn State and why can't Illinois (OK, they wouldn't make much money)?

Texas views itself bigger than any institution in the Rust Belt.. if the B16 really wants Texas and LHN is the deal breaker, best believe they end up accepting LHN

(05-17-2020 08:34 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 03:31 PM)schmolik Wrote:  It would take a boatload of money for ESPN to buy out LHN. Texas as of 2018 got $10.98 million with an increase of 3% a year. That's money they get all to themselves. A Big 12 Conference third tier network would have to pay out more than ten times as much as that (assuming each member gets an equal share) for it to be worthwhile to ESPN to integrate the LHN into a Big 12 Network and then they're paying each member of the Little 8 the same $10.98M (plus interest) as they are Texas (and Oklahoma) for 3rd tier rights. Good luck with that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/...9bc811312f

As for the Big Ten allowing Texas to join and keep the LHN, as an alum of two Big Ten universities (Illinois and Penn State graduate school), I'd be very against it, it would be a deal breaker for me. If they can have 3rd tier rights and keep all of their money, why can't Penn State and why can't Illinois (OK, they wouldn't make much money)?

Texas views itself bigger than any institution in the Rust Belt.. if the B16 really wants Texas and LHN is the deal breaker, best believe they end up accepting LHN

Join the BIG or SEC and you're on the same level as your peers. No more ruling a conference like Texas currently does. It's probably in the best interest of Texas to stay put, protect that big ego of their's. Texas can look down on these "rust belt" schools all they want but we never look up to them.

Best of luck whenever this next season starts.

Hook'em Horns!

The keep what you kill aspect would lead to a slightly larger conference than that due to politics and rivals. And it will really irk a lot of the lower SEC which will lose big money.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-17-2020 10:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The keep what you kill aspect would lead to a slightly larger conference than that due to politics and rivals. And it will really irk a lot of the lower SEC which will lose big money.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app

The SEC will simply refuse to cooperate. We've contracted for 14 schools. They'll either help us land who we will accept or they won't. We'll either take who we want or we won't take anybody. Nobody in the SEC will take a cut in pay to land a single school. If ESPN wants us to take a school that would cause our average payout to go down then ESPN will either pay that school the SEC's pro rata, or we won't be taking them. There's nothing too hard about that.

Right now there are only 2 ACC schools that might, and I do mean might, earn pro rata in the SEC, but there are no ACC schools that add to our bottom line. Not even the market adds of Virginia and North Carolina add enough. The dynamic changed with a new contract which at minimum will pay each member school 67 million, and which when the details are released will likely pay above 70 million per school plus escalators. The only 3 schools that can add to the SEC or Big 10 bottom line are Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. Everyone else, including U.S.C. and Stanford, and Washington, comes up short for the Big 10 and the SEC.

So if ESPN wants a merger of SEC schools with ACC schools then every ACC school included will have to be guaranteed to receive what SEC schools receive. It is the only way a merger ever has a chance of happening now.

(05-17-2020 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 10:12 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The keep what you kill aspect would lead to a slightly larger conference than that due to politics and rivals. And it will really irk a lot of the lower SEC which will lose big money.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app

The SEC will simply refuse to cooperate. We've contracted for 14 schools. They'll either help us land who we will accept or they won't. We'll either take who we want or we won't take anybody. Nobody in the SEC will take a cut in pay to land a single school. If ESPN wants us to take a school that would cause our average payout to go down then ESPN will either pay that school the SEC's pro rata, or we won't be taking them. There's nothing too hard about that.

Right now there are only 2 ACC schools that might, and I do mean might, earn pro rata in the SEC, but there are no ACC schools that add to our bottom line. Not even the market adds of Virginia and North Carolina add enough. The dynamic changed with a new contract which at minimum will pay each member school 67 million, and which when the details are released will likely pay above 70 million per school plus escalators. The only 3 schools that can add to the SEC or Big 10 bottom line are Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. Everyone else, including U.S.C. and Stanford, and Washington, comes up short for the Big 10 and the SEC.

So if ESPN wants a merger of SEC schools with ACC schools then every ACC school included will have to be guaranteed to receive what SEC schools receive. It is the only way a merger ever has a chance of happening now.

Agree, that no one will take a cut in media payouts. Also, this is just a theoretical issue... until OU and UT-Austin make a choice about their post-2024 future.

But...

In my OP, I kept all current SEC schools in one of three groups: 1) West, 2) South and 3) Atlantic. The West group is anchored by UT-Austin and OU, two out of the top 5 most valuable TV properties in college athletics. The two blue bloods will support Mizzou and Vandy...two of the less wealthy athletic programs in the current SEC. Seven out of eight members of the South group are current SEC schools. There should not be any concerns with media payouts to the South group. The Atlantic group is anchored by the Gators and Dawgs; it also includes football-first programs from the ACC. Given the TV markets from the Carolinas through Florida, payouts from ESPN should be well justified.

The only group that may not merit the SEC-level expected media payouts is the Coastal. It has a hodge-podge of basketball-first (e.g., UNC, Duke, UVA and Syracuse) and northern (Pitt, BC and Syracuse) universities. ESPN could leverage the Notre Dame affiliation with this group. Maybe schedule 4 ND games per year with the Coastal...driving-up TV ratings. Possibly ND should have to guarantee scheduling a minimum of 6 games per year to the broader SEC/ACC merger. In exchange, the SEC/ACC will not demand a champions-only CFP format. ESPN has levers to promote the Coastal. But if the Coastal is the road-block to enhanced media payouts for all, then the Coastal schools could have lower payouts.

In other words, this large southern reinvention of the Southern Conference circa 1920s is a confederation.

It really only makes sense for ESPN to keep the LHN alive past 2031 if they are going to secure the full Big 12 T1 and T2 package.

Right now they are somewhat content overpaying for Texas T3 content because it allows them to not have to to pay the other 9 at the same rate.

(05-17-2020 09:34 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 08:34 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 03:31 PM)schmolik Wrote:  It would take a boatload of money for ESPN to buy out LHN. Texas as of 2018 got $10.98 million with an increase of 3% a year. That's money they get all to themselves. A Big 12 Conference third tier network would have to pay out more than ten times as much as that (assuming each member gets an equal share) for it to be worthwhile to ESPN to integrate the LHN into a Big 12 Network and then they're paying each member of the Little 8 the same $10.98M (plus interest) as they are Texas (and Oklahoma) for 3rd tier rights. Good luck with that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/...9bc811312f

As for the Big Ten allowing Texas to join and keep the LHN, as an alum of two Big Ten universities (Illinois and Penn State graduate school), I'd be very against it, it would be a deal breaker for me. If they can have 3rd tier rights and keep all of their money, why can't Penn State and why can't Illinois (OK, they wouldn't make much money)?

Texas views itself bigger than any institution in the Rust Belt.. if the B16 really wants Texas and LHN is the deal breaker, best believe they end up accepting LHN

Join the BIG or SEC and you're on the same level as your peers. No more ruling a conference like Texas currently does. It's probably in the best interest of Texas to stay put, protect that big ego of their's. Texas can look down on these "rust belt" schools all they want but we never look up to them.

Best of luck whenever this next season starts.

Hook'em Horns!

They still would look down on them either way.. You think they looked up to the power program of Nebraska in the 90's? It wasn't ou and UT wasn't exactly killing the nation when the merger happened. Call it arrogance or a cancer but when Texas throws it's weight around, things move. And IL or psu aren't gonna change that. Besides it's UM and tosu who have the clout there, just as Bama (for now) and FL do for the SEC

(05-18-2020 01:47 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 09:34 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 08:34 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 03:31 PM)schmolik Wrote:  It would take a boatload of money for ESPN to buy out LHN. Texas as of 2018 got $10.98 million with an increase of 3% a year. That's money they get all to themselves. A Big 12 Conference third tier network would have to pay out more than ten times as much as that (assuming each member gets an equal share) for it to be worthwhile to ESPN to integrate the LHN into a Big 12 Network and then they're paying each member of the Little 8 the same $10.98M (plus interest) as they are Texas (and Oklahoma) for 3rd tier rights. Good luck with that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/...9bc811312f

As for the Big Ten allowing Texas to join and keep the LHN, as an alum of two Big Ten universities (Illinois and Penn State graduate school), I'd be very against it, it would be a deal breaker for me. If they can have 3rd tier rights and keep all of their money, why can't Penn State and why can't Illinois (OK, they wouldn't make much money)?

Texas views itself bigger than any institution in the Rust Belt.. if the B16 really wants Texas and LHN is the deal breaker, best believe they end up accepting LHN

Join the BIG or SEC and you're on the same level as your peers. No more ruling a conference like Texas currently does. It's probably in the best interest of Texas to stay put, protect that big ego of their's. Texas can look down on these "rust belt" schools all they want but we never look up to them.

Best of luck whenever this next season starts.

Hook'em Horns!

They still would look down on them either way.. You think they looked up to the power program of Nebraska in the 90's? It wasn't ou and UT wasn't exactly killing the nation when the merger happened. Call it arrogance or a cancer but when Texas throws it's weight around, things move. And IL or psu aren't gonna change that. Besides it's UM and tosu who have the clout there, just as Bama (for now) and FL do for the SEC

14 teams that are all on the same page with the same expectations, wants, needs, foresight etc... are what carry the clout of a successful conference. Not one team!

That's not a statement of being a "conference fanboy" so to speak, I'm not one of those. It's a statement of pride that my school is a part of that.

PSU, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern etc... are not in this to look down on anyone. Find it funny that the University of Texas at Austin feels the need to do so.