- Thread starter
- #1
Goldbug
Well-Known Member
- 3,343
- 981
- 113
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Location
- WA & TX
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
Here we go again.
David Boren would like to end The Longhorn Network
David Boren would like to end The Longhorn Network
David Boren would like to form a Big 12 Network. (Photo by Paul Hellstern)
David Boren has his sights set on something bigger than conference expansion or a Big 12 title game. The OU president is focused on what started this whole “psychologically disadvantaged” Big 12 in the first place.
The Longhorn Network.
On Wednesday, day the NCAA voted to allow the Big 12 to stage a football championship game even without divisional play or at least 12 members, Boren released a statement to the OU Daily, the campus newspaper.
“The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least 12 members, we do not have a conference network and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference.”
What Boren is talking about is the end of Bevo TV.
The Longhorn Network was the catalyst for much of the Big 12 exodus. Certainly Texas A&M and Missouri in its wake. Nebraska’s departure a year earlier was Texas-related, but more broad-based than just UT’s impending 20-year, $300-million contract with ESPN.
While other conferences, particularly the SEC and the Big Ten, have flourished with conference networks, the Big 12 has been a European caste system with The Longhorn Network. Texas is flush with money, most of the rest of the schools have garnered little from the broadcast rights available to market on their own. And a Big 12 Network is not possible as long as Texas has Bevo TV.
But The Longhorn Network has been a financial disaster for ESPN and has not spurred Texas to great heights athletically. Since the advent of Bevo TV, Texas football and basketball have nose-dived. And while UT’s other sports have ranged from solid to elite, UT’s other sports always have ranged from solid to elite.
Don’t consider this a Bevo Bash. You can’t blame Texas. The Longhorns were looking out for themselves and found the golden calf. The Big 12’s policy of giving to the schools broadcast rights not designated in contracts with ABC/ESPN and FOX was not a 1-11 vote. OU, Texas A&M and Nebraska stood with Texas.
But the folly of school networks has been exposed. Conference networks are the way to proceed, both from a marketing and from a strengthen-the-conference standpoint. A Big 12 Network, while having little chance of being as lucrative as the Big Ten’s or the SEC’s, would do exactly what Boren believes it would do: solidify a league that has been unstable for six or seven years.
So what to do about it? Texas hasn’t exactly been a Musketeer. One-for-all and all-for-one? Not in Austin. And you can’t blame the Longhorns for that. We all look out for ourselves.
But perhaps Boren senses that this is a time to strike. A time to convince Texas that its best interest is to move to a conference-network model that strengthens the league and would in turn strengthen each league member.
The architects of Bevo TV — athletic director DeLoss Dodds and president Bill Powers — are gone. New leadership is in place. Could they be convinced to adopt a Big 12 Network? Roll The Longhorn Network into a Big 12 Network?
Certainly, financial provisions would have to be made. Texas is guaranteed $15 million a year from Bevo TV. A Big 12 Network would not make that much for each individual school. At least not now. Would the Big 12 members agree to guarantee Texas $15 million a year for the next 15 years, with the rest of the league sharing equally the remaining payouts, be it $5 million or $8 million or $10 million?
Could a compromise be reached? Now certainly is the time to discuss such things.
Boren is on to something. Why patch a hole when the whole roof needs replaced. Why add a football title game when bigger issues linger? Why expand, if the same problems would exist?
Boren’s declaration that fixing everything at once — expand, ideally to 12, which would give the league a title game, while also implementing a conference network — would get the Big 12 back on the road to equal footing with the leagues it considers its peers.
Form a Big 12 Network, and suddenly different schools look much better. Connecticut, for example. An entire state of 3.5 million is gaga over UConn basketball. A Big 12 Network would sell in New England, while providing exposure for the other schools.
Brigham Young would be an interesting case. BYU TV is a major force — it was on my cable system at the Camelback Inn in Scottsdale — and the Cougars would have to move their athletic content from BYU TV to a Big 12 Network. I have no idea if that appeals to BYU; the current Big 12 system is perfect for the Cougars. But if BYU athletics moved into a Big 12 Network, that would open markets everywhere for the enterprise. BYU has a national following.
The other expansion candidates — Cincinnati, Boise State, Houston, Central Florida, East Carolina, whoever you think of — don’t really register much on the conference-network train.
But Connecticut and Brigham Young would be major additions.
Boren has been politicking for a long time for Big 12 change. His public statements on the “psychologically-disadvantaged” league. His efforts to build consensus for expansion.
This is his goal: the end of The Longhorn Network, and a Musketeer attitude in the Big 12.
David Boren would like to end The Longhorn Network
David Boren would like to end The Longhorn Network
David Boren would like to form a Big 12 Network. (Photo by Paul Hellstern)
David Boren has his sights set on something bigger than conference expansion or a Big 12 title game. The OU president is focused on what started this whole “psychologically disadvantaged” Big 12 in the first place.
The Longhorn Network.
On Wednesday, day the NCAA voted to allow the Big 12 to stage a football championship game even without divisional play or at least 12 members, Boren released a statement to the OU Daily, the campus newspaper.
“The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least 12 members, we do not have a conference network and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference.”
What Boren is talking about is the end of Bevo TV.
The Longhorn Network was the catalyst for much of the Big 12 exodus. Certainly Texas A&M and Missouri in its wake. Nebraska’s departure a year earlier was Texas-related, but more broad-based than just UT’s impending 20-year, $300-million contract with ESPN.
While other conferences, particularly the SEC and the Big Ten, have flourished with conference networks, the Big 12 has been a European caste system with The Longhorn Network. Texas is flush with money, most of the rest of the schools have garnered little from the broadcast rights available to market on their own. And a Big 12 Network is not possible as long as Texas has Bevo TV.
But The Longhorn Network has been a financial disaster for ESPN and has not spurred Texas to great heights athletically. Since the advent of Bevo TV, Texas football and basketball have nose-dived. And while UT’s other sports have ranged from solid to elite, UT’s other sports always have ranged from solid to elite.
Don’t consider this a Bevo Bash. You can’t blame Texas. The Longhorns were looking out for themselves and found the golden calf. The Big 12’s policy of giving to the schools broadcast rights not designated in contracts with ABC/ESPN and FOX was not a 1-11 vote. OU, Texas A&M and Nebraska stood with Texas.
But the folly of school networks has been exposed. Conference networks are the way to proceed, both from a marketing and from a strengthen-the-conference standpoint. A Big 12 Network, while having little chance of being as lucrative as the Big Ten’s or the SEC’s, would do exactly what Boren believes it would do: solidify a league that has been unstable for six or seven years.
So what to do about it? Texas hasn’t exactly been a Musketeer. One-for-all and all-for-one? Not in Austin. And you can’t blame the Longhorns for that. We all look out for ourselves.
But perhaps Boren senses that this is a time to strike. A time to convince Texas that its best interest is to move to a conference-network model that strengthens the league and would in turn strengthen each league member.
The architects of Bevo TV — athletic director DeLoss Dodds and president Bill Powers — are gone. New leadership is in place. Could they be convinced to adopt a Big 12 Network? Roll The Longhorn Network into a Big 12 Network?
Certainly, financial provisions would have to be made. Texas is guaranteed $15 million a year from Bevo TV. A Big 12 Network would not make that much for each individual school. At least not now. Would the Big 12 members agree to guarantee Texas $15 million a year for the next 15 years, with the rest of the league sharing equally the remaining payouts, be it $5 million or $8 million or $10 million?
Could a compromise be reached? Now certainly is the time to discuss such things.
Boren is on to something. Why patch a hole when the whole roof needs replaced. Why add a football title game when bigger issues linger? Why expand, if the same problems would exist?
Boren’s declaration that fixing everything at once — expand, ideally to 12, which would give the league a title game, while also implementing a conference network — would get the Big 12 back on the road to equal footing with the leagues it considers its peers.
Form a Big 12 Network, and suddenly different schools look much better. Connecticut, for example. An entire state of 3.5 million is gaga over UConn basketball. A Big 12 Network would sell in New England, while providing exposure for the other schools.
Brigham Young would be an interesting case. BYU TV is a major force — it was on my cable system at the Camelback Inn in Scottsdale — and the Cougars would have to move their athletic content from BYU TV to a Big 12 Network. I have no idea if that appeals to BYU; the current Big 12 system is perfect for the Cougars. But if BYU athletics moved into a Big 12 Network, that would open markets everywhere for the enterprise. BYU has a national following.
The other expansion candidates — Cincinnati, Boise State, Houston, Central Florida, East Carolina, whoever you think of — don’t really register much on the conference-network train.
But Connecticut and Brigham Young would be major additions.
Boren has been politicking for a long time for Big 12 change. His public statements on the “psychologically-disadvantaged” league. His efforts to build consensus for expansion.
This is his goal: the end of The Longhorn Network, and a Musketeer attitude in the Big 12.
