Texas & Georgia Tech to B1G rumors

[charlie42s]

Actually, Texas turned down the Pac when Beebe was able to provide proof that ABC/ESPN and Fox would increase the payouts from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 contracts.

 

[charlie42s]

Actually, Texas turned down the Pac when Beebe was able to provide proof that ABC/ESPN and Fox would increase the payouts from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 contracts.

Here's a link from USA Today.
Texas turns down Pac-10 invitation; Big 12 hoping to stick with 10 teams

 

[john01992]

Here's a link from USA Today.
Texas turns down Pac-10 invitation; Big 12 hoping to stick with 10 teams

to be clear.......

texas turned down the pac because the pac wouldnt take them on texas terms...........(including a LHN)

theres a huge difference there.....

and when the b12 lost aggie/mizz texas was flatout rejected by the pac when they announced they would not do any more expansion.

 

[charlie42s]

... and the goober is unwilling to supply a link to provide support for its' faulty opinion.

 

[charlie42s]

The timeline June 2010 UT turns down the PAC. Jan 2011 UT announces the LHN partnership with ESPN.

The LHN was not a factor with UT's negotiations with the PAC.

 

[john01992]

-
How so? Big Ten network paid out 7.6mm to the conference last yr, which was down from 8.1mm the yr prior. It was down, because Nebraska got a pay-out in yr 2. At some pt your pt will make sense, but over the last couple yrs it has not been the case. Big 12 network will not make as much as the Big 10 network. Keep in mind the Big 10 network has been around for 6 yrs and is paying less. Last yr Texas received 19.8 from the Big 12 and 11MM for LHN. 30.8mm > 25.7mm paid to Big 12. Texas is at a +5mm run rate currently, so it will take awhile for the economics to favor the Big 10

thats not the true numbers. i do commend you for avoiding the 2 major "white lies" that b12 posters tend to use and being honest about them (the real LHN/b12 payouts). however the mistake made was that you dont include all of tier 3 for the b10/texas because some the the LHN content other programs sell off to companies like IMG or sell them in house. so the best way to be fair with these figures is to include the IMG deals.

before the LHN texas had a pre existing tier 3 deal with IMG for 9.4 mill a year.
the LHN pays 15 mill a year however because IMG already owns part of the content given to the LHN, they get a 4 mill a year cut from the LHN. so in reality texas only makes 11 mill a year of the LHN

tier 3 total: 20.4 mill
b12 total 19.8 mill
total: 40.2 mill

now looking at ohio state

they have an 11 mill a year deal with img
25.7 mill from the b10
total: 35.7

so while that 5 mill gap does exist (its actually 4.5), and the total numbers are actually much bigger.

and at the end of the day OSU gets 4.5 mill less, but the trade off is conference stability, more brand exposure, 2 mill a year in hockey, and the promise of a killer new TV contract that will do more than to close that texas gap.

 

[john01992]

The timeline June 2010 UT turns down the PAC. Jan 2011 UT announces the LHN partnership with ESPN.

The LHN was not a factor with UT's negotiations with the PAC.

yeah they were. the LHN was mentioned during the pac10 negotiations. at the time UT was in negotiations with espn about it but had not signed a deal yet

 

[bonham]

The GT rumor had been persistent. I don't think they are long for the ACC. B1G wants to get into Atlanta.

because it's the freaking capital of college football!!!!!

right?

 

[john01992]

Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott told the Big 12 schools he was courting in June (Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado) they would receive $20 million in TV revenue as part of a conference network if they went west.

Texas would have had to give up plans for its own network because the conference network proposed by Scott would have required "all rights in," sources said.


^^^^^^
thats from a texas news site

 

[Codaxx]

thats not the true numbers. i do commend you for avoiding the 2 major "white lies" that b12 posters tend to use and being honest about them (the real LHN/b12 payouts). however the mistake made was that you dont include all of tier 3 for the b10/texas because some the the LHN content other programs sell off to companies like IMG or sell them in house. so the best way to be fair with these figures is to include the IMG deals.

before the LHN texas had a pre existing tier 3 deal with IMG for 9.4 mill a year.
the LHN pays 15 mill a year however because IMG already owns part of the content given to the LHN, they get a 4 mill a year cut from the LHN. so in reality texas only makes 11 mill a year of the LHN

tier 3 total: 20.4 mill
b12 total 19.8 mill
total: 40.2 mill

now looking at ohio state

they have an 11 mill a year deal with img
25.7 mill from the b10
total: 35.7

so while that 5 mill gap does exist (its actually 4.5), and the total numbers are actually much bigger.

and at the end of the day OSU gets 4.5 mill less, but the trade off is conference stability, more brand exposure, 2 mill a year in hockey, and the promise of a killer new TV contract that will do more than to close that texas

I used 11mm. I did not include the IMG contract, just the main TV contracts. You did not add the IMG money to Texas, but you did for OSU. I am sure that was an oversight. I would not say Ohio State has a higher brand exposure than Texas, but lets day it is debatable. At the end of the day Texas is far and away the money leader in CFB, any argument that they have made uneconomical decisions are based on future projections and scenarios we can not know.

 

[bigred472]

-
How so? Big Ten network paid out 7.6mm to the conference last yr, which was down from 8.1mm the yr prior. It was down, because Nebraska got a pay-out in yr 2. At some pt your pt will make sense, but over the last couple yrs it has not been the case. Big 12 network will not make as much as the Big 10 network. Keep in mind the Big 10 network has been around for 6 yrs and is paying less. Last yr Texas received 19.8 from the Big 12 and 11MM for LHN. 30.8mm > 25.7mm paid to Big 12. Texas is at a +5mm run rate currently, so it will take awhile for the economics to favor the Big 10

-------
<LI id=menu-item-314850 class="menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom">TicketsBig Ten’s per-member payout this year? Nearly $25 million

Posted by John Taylor on May 21, 2012, 9:38 AM EDT

APAlready flush with cash, each member of the Big Ten will realize a significantly higher windfall than they’ve ever received in the past. According to a report from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch over the weekend, 11 of the 12 members of the conference — Nebraska, which officially joined the league last year, does not yet receive a full share — will receive an estimated $24.6 million this year in shared revenue. The Post-Dispatch obtained the financial information from the Illinois athletic department.

The nearly $25 million per-school payout (pictured) is a record for the conference, topping the $22.8 million total each member received last year. In 2008, each school received $18.7 million, meaning the payouts have increased over 35 percent the past four years.
-------
Coda--you were saying??? And this is only from theB1G network not anything with the cables or ABC or CBS oh well you get the picture. You can lie to some of the people some of the time, but don't pull this shit on a B1G conference member regardless of school affiliation.

 

[john01992]

thats not the true numbers. i do commend you for avoiding the 2 major "white lies" that b12 posters tend to use and being honest about them (the real LHN/b12 payouts). however the mistake made was that you dont include all of tier 3 for the b10/texas because some the the LHN content other programs sell off to companies like IMG or sell them in house. so the best way to be fair with these figures is to include the IMG deals.

before the LHN texas had a pre existing tier 3 deal with IMG for 9.4 mill a year.
the LHN pays 15 mill a year however because IMG already owns part of the content given to the LHN, they get a 4 mill a year cut from the LHN. so in reality texas only makes 11 mill a year of the LHN

tier 3 total: 20.4 mill
b12 total 19.8 mill
total: 40.2 mill

now looking at ohio state

they have an 11 mill a year deal with img
25.7 mill from the b10
total: 35.7

so while that 5 mill gap does exist (its actually 4.5), and the total numbers are actually much bigger.

and at the end of the day OSU gets 4.5 mill less, but the trade off is conference stability, more brand exposure, 2 mill a year in hockey, and the promise of a killer new TV contract that will do more than to close that texas

I used 11mm. I did not include the IMG contract, just the main TV contracts. You did not add the IMG money to Texas, but you did for OSU. I am sure that was an oversight. I would not say Ohio State has a higher brand exposure than Texas, but lets day it is debatable. At the end of the day Texas is far and away the money leader in CFB, any argument that they have made uneconomical decisions are based on future projections and scenarios we can not know.

15 mill (from the LHN) + 9.4 mill (from IMG) - 4 mill (paid to IMG) = 20.4 mill (tier 3 total) + 19.8 mill from the b12 = 40.2

where did i not include the IMG for texas?

by more brand exposure i mean that osu has their tier 3 distributed on the BTN a network that is ranked 20th in subscriber rates and is available to 100 million viewers. texas is without a doubt the more desired team to see on TV however its ohio state that gets more exposure on TV, thats due in large part to texas having 3 games a year on a network that is available to just 10 million viewers last i checked

 

[bigred472]

False. The only reason NU is in the B1G is b/c Texas turned down the Big 10 when they came calling. Actually, the only reason NU is in the B1G is b/c Texas and ND turned them down. You boys are terrible thirds, the 3rd choice, the one choice the Big 10 had to settle for since their 1st two choices said no. Now, the Pac 10 turned down Texas mainly b/c of politics and the LHN. Other than that, there wasn't another major conference out there that came calling or that Texas contacted. Keep trying......

-------
God, you guys can lie with a straight face. Every conference that has approached Texas has told them no because of your financial demands. Case in point IS the B1G. You snooped around there long before Nebraska started showing interest and gues what? The B1G was already revenue sharing. Something Texas didn't agree to until they were forced to after the Big 12 almost imploded. Your "revenue sharing" didn't exist when Texas was sniffing around the B1Gs butt. And you got told "NO" for that very reason.

 

[charlie42s]

Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott told the Big 12 schools he was courting in June (Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado) they would receive $20 million in TV revenue as part of a conference network if they went west.

Texas would have had to give up plans for its own network because the conference network proposed by Scott would have required "all rights in," sources said.


^^^^^^
thats from a texas news site

You wrote that the PAC turned down Texas. Where's the link you are unable and unwilling to provide as evidence?

I provided a link that clearly stated that Texas turned down the PAC and the PAC did not deny the Texas statement.

 

[charlie42s]

15 mill (from the LHN) + 9.4 mill (from IMG) - 4 mill (paid to IMG) = 20.4 mill (tier 3 total) + 19.8 mill from the b12 = 40.2

where did i not include the IMG for texas?

by more brand exposure i mean that osu has their tier 3 distributed on the BTN a network that is ranked 20th in subscriber rates and is available to 100 million viewers. texas is without a doubt the more desired team to see on TV however its ohio state that gets more exposure on TV, thats due in large part to texas having 3 games a year on a network that is available to just 10 million viewers last i checked

Where did you get that Texas pays IMG $4 million/year? Are you confusing the LHN contract with the IMG contract? They are 2 totally different contracts.

 

[john01992]

Where did you get that Texas pays IMG $4 million/year? Are you confusing the LHN contract with the IMG contract? They are 2 totally different contracts.

they are two totally different contracts however IMG already owned part of UTs tier 3 because they already sold it to them in a previous contract. so the LHN was not a duo between espn/texas but a trio which included IMGas well.

The new network will be the top branding asset for the university in exposure and value, as ESPN will pay a $300 million guaranteed rights fee over 20 years to the university and to IMG College (which in 1998 acquired the university's third-tier sports programming rights).

ESPN, IMG Introduce TV Network for The University of Texas at Austin | News

i dont think it gets any more official than uttexas.edu

heres a site that lists the actual payouts

» Texas? Contract with ESPN for the Longhorn Network
ESPN is building $13 million studios and paying out over $10.98 million to Texas and $4.02 million to IMG.

 

[john01992]

You wrote that the PAC turned down Texas. Where's the link you are unable and unwilling to provide as evidence?

I provided a link that clearly stated that Texas turned down the PAC and the PAC did not deny the Texas statement.

um...when a midnight deal fell though over the pacs hardline stance on no conference network

 

[charlie42s]

um...when a midnight deal fell though over the pacs hardline stance on no conference network

... and that is not the PAC turning Texas down. Do you recognize the difference?

Texas turned down the PAC offer and its conditions.

 

[john01992]

... and that is not the PAC turning Texas down. Do you recognize the difference?

Texas turned down the PAC offer and its conditions.

yeah which were fair conditions though....texas wanted special treatment to join the pac and they didnt get it.

the pac 12 rejected texas terms for joining.

by no means should texas be parading that lil incident around.

 

[Wheat]

dunno, but I think john is still butt hurt that nobody in the current BIG 12 cares about CU or their defection to the PAC 10.....