David Boren would like to end The Longhorn Network

[4down20]

So we add:

Temple (Philly)
Houston
Tulane (New Orleans)
UCF (Orlando/Tampa)

Change LHN to the B12 network and we are on the same financial ground as the SEC iyo?

I'm not sure on market sizes, just know that you are going to need them to maximize the revenue. As I understand it, the entire state has to pay the premium prices. So like the SEC adding A&M was a huge boost to the revenue of the SEC Network because all of Texas pays the premium price($1.30-$1.40 a month) vs the non premium of $0.25.

 

[TexasExes98]

That you still believe they are going to be making more than SEC schools is so funny.

Denial at it's finest.

Won't be surprised when SEC schools are pulling in more each than Texas.

Those schools are making more than SEC schools today, that's a fact. KSU might be making a tad less.

 

[4down20]

Those schools are making more than SEC schools today, that's a fact. KSU might be making a tad less.

Denial.

 

[TexasExes98]

Denial.

Texas, OU, KSU, WVU, and KU each received around $27M for 1st and 2nd tier rights. SEC schools received around $32M, give or take. Texas receives an additional $15M for 3rd tier rights, KU receives $6.1M for 3rd tier, OU receives $7M, WVU receives $6.5M for 3rd tier and KSU receives $3.8M. Do the math you lifelong Bama fan.....

 

[4down20]

Texas, OU, KSU, WVU, and KU each received around $27M for 1st and 2nd tier rights. SEC schools received around $32M, give or take. Texas receives an additional $15M for 3rd tier rights, KU receives $6.1M for 3rd tier, OU receives $7M, WVU receives $6.5M for 3rd tier and KSU receives $3.8M. Do the math you lifelong Bama fan.....

I did, go back a page dipshit.

SEC schools will be making between 13 and 17 million this year from T3 rights.

 

[fordman84]

Correct me if I'm wrong ( I may very well be, didn't follow behind the scenes Big12 goings on then) didn't Texas try to get the conference to form a conference network before LHN and got the Heisman stiff arm from everyone else?

If so, I can't see why people are so outraged by them getting one on their own

Reality is that Texas got with A&M to form a network. The deal Texas offered was "A&M you pay more of the costs and we will split the profits evenly". I'm paraphrasing there, but that was the deal. A&M paid more than Texas, because Texas. Then 50/50 split of revenues.

A&M told them to eat a bag of something. I can't quite remember what that bag was.

 

[GoldRusher]

Cincinnati refuses to release records of any contact its made with Big 12 | Statesman U

 

[fordman84]

Cincinnati refuses to release records of any contact its made with Big 12 | Statesman U

Says they could be making sure they don't mess up anything with the big12, but is there any fee for breaking and leaving their current conference? Might be looking for that, or figuring out what it will cost.

Cincy wouldn't be a good get,IMO. Houston would be a great fit for the Big12. Would come in as the 3rd or 4th best team.

 

[Deep Creek]

Thought this appropriate for this thread.
Should Texas abandon Longhorn Network for a Big 12 Network? | SportsDay

Here are the key paragraphs IMHO.

According to SNL Kagan, a media research firm that crunches numbers, the deal has lost ESPN almost $50 million to date.

But ESPN, which has suffered from a decline in subscribers and lost fees that have affected the entire cable industry, apparently isn't looking for any escape clauses.

"ESPN is proud of the extraordinary content and availability of Longhorn Network," Rosalyn Durant, ESPN senior vice president, college networks, said through a spokesman. "We have a long-term commitment to serving Texas fans with the network."

Neither Durant nor any network executive would address interest in a Big 12 Network similar to ESPN's SEC Network, whose success appears the antithesis to LHN.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Anybody asking for a network is just not in touch with today's reality. ESPN will not be launching any more networks, like i've posted before they're in real trouble with all this cord cutting. Ironically the rest of the big 12 is set up nicely for the future, once the direct to consumer television reality is in full swing. Texas and the SEC are kinda screwed since we're married to ESPN, who can't go direct to consumer because they've paid way too much for their content. Pac 12 network has been a disaster, but if they can wait it out and make their network like the WWE network and direct to consumer they'll be ok. If you don't think ESPN is in trouble, why haven't they launched an ACC network? They already own their tier 3 rights, all they have to do is launch it.

 

[Deep Creek]

If you don't think ESPN is in trouble, why haven't they launched an ACC network? They already own their tier 3 rights, all they have to do is launch it.

Someone a whole lot more knowledgeable in this stuff than I am will have to answer that question. My only information on this kind of stuff comes from my son-in-law. And his take on it goes way beyond just sports programming. He says there are just as many people that hate being forced to pay for Lifetime like channels, home shopping networks, etc as there are that hate being forced to pay for LHN, SEC and Big 10 Networks.

 

[fordman84]

Anybody asking for a network is just not in touch with today's reality. ESPN will not be launching any more networks, like i've posted before they're in real trouble with all this cord cutting. Ironically the rest of the big 12 is set up nicely for the future, once the direct to consumer television reality is in full swing. Texas and the SEC are kinda screwed since we're married to ESPN, who can't go direct to consumer because they've paid way too much for their content. Pac 12 network has been a disaster, but if they can wait it out and make their network like the WWE network and direct to consumer they'll be ok. If you don't think ESPN is in trouble, why haven't they launched an ACC network? They already own their tier 3 rights, all they have to do is launch it.

ESPN may not be as screwed as some think, but they need to get heir dinosaurs out of leadership. Instead of fighting the chord cutters, they need to embrace them. ESPN's biggest issue is Disney owning them, and Disney thinking they hold the clout to force people to play in their sandbox. That isn't really the case anymore, not on TV. ESPN's embrace of SlingTV as well as their early venture into ESPN3/ESPNonline gave me hope they would lead the charge to change, but they haven't yet. I keep waiting on an HBOGO type setup where they make all of their content available to everyone and take 100% of the money. All you need is a streaming device and a subscription and you can have ESPN.

I have no idea how much ESPN gets per subscriber today from cable or satellite, but I can't imagine it is more than $10 per subscriber. How many here would pay $15 to have every full ESPN content? I would, assuming the performance and UI isn't garbage like SlingTV is. I've written many times that I cut the chord when my kid was born because we had no time to watch the $150 a month DirecTV subscription but then I learned to live without it. If I could get FSSW + ESPN, I'd gladly pay for it. Right now to do that I'd need a SlingTV subscription ($20 a month) plus a SonyVue subscription ($50 a month), which I actually did for a bit. But all the extra crap i didn't care for and didn't use enough to justify. So I went back to Prime and Hulu and Netflix. Pro-tip...if your kid grows up on Netflix he is never hitting you up to buy whatever the latest lame crap on cartoon commercials is to roll out.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Someone a whole lot more knowledgeable in this stuff than I am will have to answer that question. My only information on this kind of stuff comes from my son-in-law. And his take on it goes way beyond just sports programming. He says there are just as many people that hate being forced to pay for Lifetime like channels, home shopping networks, etc as there are that hate being forced to pay for LHN, SEC and Big 10 Networks.

yup, that's why cord cutting is becoming a big trend. Now, i think in the end you'll still have to buy stuff you dont' want, like you'll have to buy the disney bundle to get ESPN. But ESPN will not be throwing money around like they have been, they're the only disney portfolio that doesn't own its content and therefore its not as profitable. Disney bought star wars, and can milk it for all its worth. ESPN "rents" college football, but doesn't get a dime from t shirt sales, tickets, etc...

 

[Lance Armstrong]

ESPN may not be as screwed as some think, but they need to get heir dinosaurs out of leadership. Instead of fighting the chord cutters, they need to embrace them. ESPN's biggest issue is Disney owning them, and Disney thinking they hold the clout to force people to play in their sandbox. That isn't really the case anymore, not on TV. ESPN's embrace of SlingTV as well as their early venture into ESPN3/ESPNonline gave me hope they would lead the charge to change, but they haven't yet. I keep waiting on an HBOGO type setup where they make all of their content available to everyone and take 100% of the money. All you need is a streaming device and a subscription and you can have ESPN.

I have no idea how much ESPN gets per subscriber today from cable or satellite, but I can't imagine it is more than $10 per subscriber. How many here would pay $15 to have every full ESPN content? I would, assuming the performance and UI isn't garbage like SlingTV is. I've written many times that I cut the chord when my kid was born because we had no time to watch the $150 a month DirecTV subscription but then I learned to live without it. If I could get FSSW + ESPN, I'd gladly pay for it. Right now to do that I'd need a SlingTV subscription ($20 a month) plus a SonyVue subscription ($50 a month), which I actually did for a bit. But all the extra crap i didn't care for and didn't use enough to justify. So I went back to Prime and Hulu and Netflix. Pro-tip...if your kid grows up on Netflix he is never hitting you up to buy whatever the latest lame crap on cartoon commercials is to roll out.

Per an article i read, they'd have to charge like 35 bucks a month just to break even if they did an HBO go type thing. I would pay that, but a study showed most people wouldn't, that's why they're married to the cable model for now. Basically ESPN paid way too much for college football and NBA content. That's why i say Texas/SEC is kinda screwed with the cord cutting trend, unless ESPN can somehow make it work.

 

[fordman84]

Per an article i read, they'd have to charge like 35 bucks a month just to break even if they did an HBO go type thing. I would pay that, but a study showed most people wouldn't, that's why they're married to the cable model for now. Basically ESPN paid way too much for college football and NBA content. That's why i say Texas/SEC is kinda screwed with the cord cutting trend, unless ESPN can somehow make it work.

I could believe that as a startup cost, but should go down if they saw how many would sign up for it. I'd pay $35 for ESPN content with two streams allowed.

 

[GoldRusher]

The Cord-Cutting Myth in the Golden Age of TV - High Tech Forum

 

[Texas Jefe]

the only thing we-as CFB fans who want to see the games-can hang our hats on is this: the desire for live programming will never go away. The vehicle to get it to the consumer is in the beginning stages of a huge change that will occur.

I was listening to Herd yesterday, was talking to a TV talent/revenue expert guy. They were talking about the network that just paid half a billion to air 5 NFL games on weeknights. The deal is, they are going to lose millions of dollars on the deal (because the games have set number of commercial timeouts, set revenue producing moments that will not change) yet they still gladly pay for the games. They know they will lose money, but they still fight to get the contracts. That's the power of live programming i.e. NFL games.

College games are not as powerful, but still in the ballpark.

 

[Texas Jefe]

Not sure what that means for us, but was thinking of terms of the LHN, and the conference networks.

They only get the 'last choice' games, as the big games are shown on the 1st/2nd tier options. Heard a guy say that the lowly games that are shown on LHN make the same numbers as the games shown on other options such as ESPNU. Yes, they are not the marquee games, but still live programming. They still have a value.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

The Cord-Cutting Myth in the Golden Age of TV - High Tech Forum

It is not necessarily Cord Cutting.
The author is obviously a borderline shill for the cable companies, but he acknowledges slimmer bundles as a reality.

Slimmer Bundles has the same impact on Conference Networks as cord cutting altogether.

People might be willing to get the big fish ESPN & ESPN 2 bundled together.
But, the massive sports bundling of about 10 different ESPN Networks together seems on life support.

Eventually each consumer is going to have an ability to directly select whether they want the SEC Network or LHN.
Even the super successful SEC Network needs those 47 million forced out of market subscribers.