Pac 10 Network – Why it Was A Deal Killer For Texas

I’m not sure what to make of the quote by Cullen.

On the one hand I get that he is saying, “hey everybody, there’s more content than bandwidth nowadays so just because you start your own TV channel doesn’t mean it will get picked up by a cable provider”. That makes sense to me. What I don’t understand is the comment about the YES network. It seems odd that he would make a point of saying not having that has been very unpopular. Is he admitting they screwed up on that one? It seems to water down his point/threat.

FanTake – 1
Dish – 0

We haz YES

Funny thing is i have cox cable, I am leaving them for one of the SAT companies. looks like my decision was made to go with direct tv.

It’s all about quality of content. And what content will lthe Longhorn network be carrying that’s of real interest to anyone, particularly in a sad sack conference like the big xii?

If we insist on the go our own way strategy, we better have plans in place for an upgrade in opponents. And we won’t be able to afford another horrific year for the football program.

Rather sacrifice a few bucks and be in a top tier conference.

With the money the Longhorns will make with the conference, doesn’t that mean that Texas will never be in a conference that has it’s own network… Meaning that if conference realignment gears up again, then Texas will be in the Big 12-2, the SEC or independent?

Yep, sources keep saying it is about wrapped up, a done deal, just waiting for Godot…

Good find on the Pac 10/12 net, srr50. I more and more think the DeLoss masterplan was perfect: Build the TV network, then deal with conference realignment. But the Big Ten and Pac-10 got antsy, and the dominoes started to fall a couple of years before we could get the network going.

I’m not unhappy with the Big 12-2 . . . We’ve kept our primary rivalries (Nebraska the exception), we have one less non-conference date to fill with an FAU or New Mexico State. The new Big 12 “sounds” weaker because of Nebraska’s loss. But the reality is that the Nebraska of 2002-2008 was more Texas Tech or Missouri strength-wise than it was vintage Nebraska or the Kansas State of 1997-2002. If one of the former North Division schools — likely K-State or Mizzou — can step up, the new league is still stronger than the ACC, much stronger than the Big East, and not far behind (if behind at all) the new-look Big Ten and Pac-10.

In four years, the Longhorn Network will be part of the package we have to offer a new conference. “You like us, our fans, our footprint, our following, our dollars, you’ll have to like our Longhorn Net as well.” If you have the big stick, use it.

Adam Taylor Puckett hits the nail on the head. Texas is going to make more money but have fewer options. Rule out the SEC due to the assorted issues that would take away UT’s leverage. You know, utter and complete disregard for rules, morals, or academics. That sort of thing. Rule out the Big 10(+2) and the Pac 12 for the network thing. So, basically, it’s the ACC, Big Easy, the Big 12(-2), or independent.

Let’s roll with the ACC.

Good travel destinations, Florida recruiting, football domination, and great basketball.

Honestly, I think BYU has one of the most interesting deals that Texas might try to emulate:

1) They have their own cable TV network that’s shown throughout the western US. It shows sports and other BYU/Mormon interest items. Theyd on’t share this money with any other schools.
2) They are independent in football (so they don’t share bowl revenue, etc.), AND they have two inportant deals:
      A) A contract with ESPN for 3 football games a year (or something like that)
      B) A contract with the WAC to fill their schedule with at least 4 WAC games a year (presumably to preserve natural rivalries). I believe that this also includes BYU in the WAC bowl tie-in’s, but I may be wrong on this one.
3) The non-football sports are in a conference with other western private, religious-affiliated schools, like Gonzaga. I think this is good for them ‘cause they’re playing people “their own size” in non-revenue sports.

Anyway, I wonder if Texas would try to secure a deal like that in 4-5 years. Maybe replace “ESPN” with “ABC” and replace “4 WAC opponents” with OU, A&M, and a couple other traditional rivals.

Finally, I am not sure that how good the football team is really matters to the new Network. Here’s why:
1) Most of the content will not be football. (Football games are already shown every single week on the Big 12’s primary and secondary TV deals.)
2) I think that Notre Dame and NBC have proven for over a decade that on-field success and TV deals do NOT go hand-in-hand!

“In the early days of this, we had more capacity than content. That’s not the case anymore”

I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about. 500 channels and 497 of them are pure shit.
Arrogant SOB. and clueless.

What a way for NU to leave the conference. The meltdown over at BOR is awesome. The Pelinis are not longer the right coaches. They are already turning on their freshman QB who played so well the first 5 games that his name was thrown around in the Heisman discussion.

Perfect.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5974715

Applewhite safe?

“©ause they’re playing people "their own size" in non-revenue sports.”

BYU has 32,000 students. The next closest has somewhere around 10,000. Sizeable advantage for non-revenue sports I would think.

“It seems odd that he would make a point of saying not having that has been very unpopular. Is he admitting they screwed up on that one? It seems to water down his point/threat.”

Given that the Yankees are the gold standard of baseball (content), it seems a viable comparison to UT. It’s unpopular not for DISH to carry it, yet it doesn’t make an incorrect business decision depending upon how much money they’re saving versus subscribership impact.

Adam Taylor Puckett – I’ve been saying the same thing for a yer now. UT-Austin will join A&M in the SEC or go independent in the next realignment – I independence looks most likely to me.

I keep watching bowl games on my computer and wondering “How long until that’s the norm, making ESPN’s cut a waste?”

NateHeupel / Ag_In_Texas -

Read the 3rd paragraph of edsp’s post. That Texas is somehow “limiting its options” in future conference realignment by launching its own network is simply wishful thinking on your part. As if that becomes some sort of deal-breaker.

For the Pac-12/Big 10, the overall economic value of expanding into Texas markets via its flagship program (and in doing so adding the premier brand in college football, etc) totally dwarfs the value of Texas’ 3rd-tier media rights. On a relative basis, it’s a small part of a very large package.

Of course, that’s not to say that they aren’t valuable. Obviously they are, as the market is currently assigning them a value of $12-15m annually. Would the conferences love to capture that value as part of realignment? Of course, but it only matters on the margin. That incremental $12-15m per year, while very significant to an individual university (Texas), is relatively immaterial to the conference in the grand scheme of conference expansion. Deloss Dodds/Bill Powers understand this and have wisely chosen to forestall realignment, temporarily, in order to forever secure this annuity stream for the University.

When the time eventually comes, these conferences will come knocking just as they have before, but with the understanding that inconvenient exceptions and side agreements will have to be made to add/integrate Texas. Wait and see.

Helmet,

I read that and I disagree with his position. Here’s why.

Take a look at the Big 10. For 2007, here are the top grossing athletic departments

1st Texas $120,288,370 Big 12
2nd Ohio State $117,953,712 Big Ten
3rd Florida $106,030,895 Southeastern Conference
4th Michigan $99,027,105 Big Ten
5th Wisconsin $93,452,334 Big Ten
6th Penn State $91,570,233 Big Ten

Notice something? There are four schools in the Big 10 right up there with UT-Austin. For them to welcome UT-Austin into their conference with open arms, they will want to increase their revenue. Right now, the growth stream in revenue for the Big 10 is their network. If UT-Austin brings nothing to that network, why would they want them in? And why would they want to welcome in a school the would have a built in financial advantage like that?

I know you like to believe any and all conferences would love to have UT-Austin, but I believe you are mistaken.

Ag, you haven’t thought this through very well. I take issue with the following assumptions:

1) That if UT maintains ownership of its 3rd tier media rights and operates its own network, it brings “nothing” to the Big 10 network. That’s incorrect. Do you really believe that if UT were to join the Big Ten conference that that wouldn’t generate a huge amount of incremental demand for the Big Ten network in Texas cable markets? That consumers would somehow be forced to choose one over the other? Of course they wouldn’t. Texas fans will want both. Cable companies will perceive that demand (which is what really matters) and will probably even bundle them together.

2) That the Big Ten network would be devoid of any Texas content. That also is incorrect. Texas will inherently be a part of any conference-level coverage programming. That’s value in and of itself and supports point #1 of driving incremental demand for the Big Ten network in Texas markets. With UT maintaining ownership of its own 3rd tier media rights, the conference will have to enter into content-sharing arrangements and compensate the University for rights usage in certain instances. UT gets a slightly bigger slice, but that’s a small price to pay for significantly growing the overall pie. Remember, what we’re sharing here are 3rd-tier media rights. That does not include live football games, and very few live men’s basketball games (certainly not conference-level).

3) You’re assigning zero economic value to adding Texas beyond the impact on the conference network. Adding the Texas brand to the conference raises the national profile and appeal of the conference, drivers national level advertising spend and increases the conference’s overall leverage within the landscape of collegiate athletic. The fact that the Big 10 has several other powerful programs doesn’t diminish the fact that Texas is the most powerful economic entity in college sports. It’s not like adding that entity to your brand portfolio fails to move the needle. And that speaks nothing to the recruiting, academic, etc. implications.

I know you’d love to believe that decisions are made based on “fairness” and Texas will get some sort of comeuppance for looking after its own interests, but the world doesn’t work that way. The economics are the economics. Adding Texas creates huge value and conferences will be willing to cut a special with Texas when the time comes.

Notice something? There are four schools in the Big 10 right up there with UT-Austin.

Three of them are about 20 percent behind, actually.

Ag,

Another major point which Helmet did not mention is the perceived opportunity for those Big Ten schools to gain entry into the recruiting hotbed that is the state of Texas (the very same reason you aggys tout as why a&m would be so valuable to the SEC). Now, personally speaking, I’m against UT or a&m joining the SEC because I believe there is a real and significant danger in allowing SEC schools that type of access to state of Texas recruiting. However, with the Big Ten, it would be more of a perceived opportunity by their schools than a real one. How many Texas HS FB players would really want to attend a school 1000 miles away and practice and play the majority of their games in freezing weather? So, in the end, Texas comes out on the better end of that deal.

The value of adding Texas has nothing to do with AD gross revenue.

It has everything to do with accessing two of the nations top 10 media markets.

That’s also one of the reasons why a Longhorn Network is viable.

2011 Top Markets

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Dallas-Fort Worth
6. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
7. Boston
8. Atlanta
9. Washington, D.C.
10. Houston
 

From: http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1070268-top-20-media-markets-2010-2011-a.html#ixzz19pNDTUqG

Honestly, the Longhorn network isn’t that great of an idea. It’s basically a Big 12 killer. With a Big 12 network, the big 12 would gain much needed stability in the form of money for the schools who’re feeling the crunch and looking everywhere else hoping to get a chunk from the deals other conferences are getting.

The Big 12 should look at starting its own network, not the Longhorns.

Why isn’t the Longhorn Network a good idea? The only people that don’t think it’s a good idea are people wo aren’t Longhorns. But every school within the conference has the right to start their own network. I’m tired of every schoolexpecting UT to carry them! STrat your own freaking network! If schools like A&M don’t want to be consired little brother, or Tech step brother, be creative and do your own thing! UT doesn’t owe the Big 12 or any schoo in it any thing! We already get stuck with not being able to do anything without have schools like Tech, Baylor, and A&M tag along, but when A&M threatens t do crap, there’s no mention of any other school in TX having to be taken care of – no, we have to car of of everybody else. People forgt we weren’t alway on top.

Sorry I wasn’t done. Anyway, we weren’t always on top, we had to work to get there. Back to the Longhorn Network – The UT Athletic Program is the top program. It has been the top revenue producer or the past five years, and the number two school after it has always made like $20M less. The Longhorn Network will make it that much more valuable. If people think UT will have multple seasons like they had this year, they are sadly mistaken, we are not Aggie. Even when people were trying to get rid of Mack, we still had winning seasons. Someone posted this on one of these sites before, but the programming that will be on the Longhorn Network will include:

Replay of Classic Games in All Sports
Live Games in Baseball, Volleyball, Softball, Soccer, Golf, Tennis, Swimming.
Interviews from all sports
Features
Recruiting
Texas High School Games to include Football (I actually saw an article on this in the Statesman where the UIL is already trying to work out a deal with UT on this. Since UT created and governs this program anyway, I don’t see why it won’t happen.)
Special deals with other schools to feature some of their games…

This Network regardless of whether or not other conferences are getting a cut will make tthe school appealing. It is really not so much about the money. The exposure alone is huge! If the deal with UIL goes through, that would be really huge! So, screw the Big 12 and anybody who doesn’t like it, this network will be a success and some of you people who aren’t even Horns fans may even be forced to subscribe to it because your kid who plays high school sports in TX will be on it.

As far as the Dish comment goes, he guy is a joke. Dish doesn’t carry alot of the normal big name channels. They are a joke.