Big 12 PAC 10 Network

[DO4ISU]

A while back I heard something about this. That there might be the possibility of the Big 12 and PAC 10 working together to make a dual conference TV Network.

I was just wondering if that is dead or if anyone has heard any new news about such a deal being worked out.

 

[Bobber]

That would be a great idea. It would cover a huge geographic area and population base. Revenue sharing is probably the big sticking point.

 

[cyfan964]

The Big 12 is under contract until 2012. Nothing can be done until 2012 at the earliest.

 

[jbhtexas]

We've been talking about such a thing occasionally on CF for the past two years. Maybe somebody is listening...

 

[DO4ISU]

I believe they can get out of that contract should they start their own network.

ACC, Big 12, Pac-10 plot media moves - John Ourand, Michael Smith/SportsBusiness Journal - College Football - Sporting News

"The Big 12's cable deal with FSN expires after the 2011-12 season, but its ESPN deal goes through 2016 -- unless the Big 12 decides to create a channel, which gives the league an out."

 

[JD720]

I believe they can get out of that contract should they start their own network.

ACC, Big 12, Pac-10 plot media moves - John Ourand, Michael Smith/SportsBusiness Journal - College Football - Sporting News

"The Big 12's cable deal with FSN expires after the 2011-12 season, but its ESPN deal goes through 2016 -- unless the Big 12 decides to create a channel, which gives the league an out."

I would think the Big 12 would rather keep the main games on ESPN/ABC, but move the 2nd tier games from FSN/VS to a Big 12 network (and of course, add games currently not being televised).

 

[JD720]

Also, while I hope it works out for the Big 12, after reading that I think it would make sense for the Pac Ten to match up with the ACC instead (from their prospective).

1. I'd have to dig into the numbers more, but at first glance it seems the ACC would bring more TV sets. The bigger question is does the ACC really bring in markets like Atlanta (where Georgia is the main team) or Boston (a pro sports market).
2. I think a 3 hour times difference would be better for scheduling both conferences' events, escpecially football.
3. Partnering with an East Coast league (even if it leans to the south) would bring more exposure to the Pac 10 than partnering with the Big 12. In this way, I think the Big East might be a better option for the Pac Ten, but that doesn't seem to be on the table at this time.

 

[tejasclone]

Call it the West of the Mississippi Network (WMN) to differentiate it from ESPN and the BTN.

 

[jumbopackage]

There is no way it makes sense from a revenue standpoint.

They would have to have a combined deal larger than both the Pac-10 and the Big 12 combined for it to make sense. Whatever network emerged would struggle mightily to put together 10-15 games a week. That's a LOT of equipment and people, and in the end, it's probably just not possible to make it work.

If they were to follow the BTN's lead, they would have to try to force themselves onto basic cable systems in a dozen different markets at the least, and negotiate profitable carriage fees for the satellite systems.

I just don't see it happening.

 

[JD720]

If they were to follow the BTN's lead, they would have to try to force themselves onto basic cable systems in a dozen different markets at the least, and negotiate profitable carriage fees for the satellite systems.

The best thing the BTN did (from a business standpoint) is have a deal with DirecTv before they launched. This gave them cash to survive the short term and leverage over the cable companies while negotiating long term deals.

I think any Big 12 channel would have to do something similar to survive.

 

[cyhiphopp]

Also, while I hope it works out for the Big 12, after reading that I think it would make sense for the Pac Ten to match up with the ACC instead (from their prospective).

1. I'd have to dig into the numbers more, but at first glance it seems the ACC would bring more TV sets. The bigger question is does the ACC really bring in markets like Atlanta (where Georgia is the main team) or Boston (a pro sports market).
2. I think a 3 hour times difference would be better for scheduling both conferences' events, escpecially football.
3. Partnering with an East Coast league (even if it leans to the south) would bring more exposure to the Pac 10 than partnering with the Big 12. In this way, I think the Big East might be a better option for the Pac Ten, but that doesn't seem to be on the table at this time.

There are a lot of TV set in Texas. Not sure how that would affect things. Also, it might help the Pac-10 to recruit talent in the state of Texas, so that might be a positive for them. It would hurt those of us Big12 school outside of Texas though as more talent would head west.

 

[jbhtexas]

They would have to have a combined deal larger than both the Pac-10 and the Big 12 combined for it to make sense. Whatever network emerged would struggle mightily to put together 10-15 games a week. That's a LOT of equipment and people, and in the end, it's probably just not possible to make it work.

I would think an advantage of this network would be that they would be able to show more live sports action for a bigger part of the day due to the time difference. For FB, by staggering start times, they could start with a Big 12 game at 11:00 AM Central and start the final Pac-10 game at 7:00 PM Pacific (9:00 PM Central). By the time that last Pac-10 game finishes, that's over 12 hours of continuous live football.

Maybe this would make the network more attractive than a network that has to show more recorded action.

If they were to follow the BTN's lead, they would have to try to force themselves onto basic cable systems in a dozen different markets at the least, and negotiate profitable carriage fees for the satellite systems.

I thought the problem as far as BTN getting on cable systems was primarily with cable networks outside of Big Ten geographic areas, and that they were readily added within the Big Ten geographic areas (or at least added with less resistance).

As the Big 12/Pac-10 network would be relevant to pretty much every market west of the Mississippi, perhaps cable networks there would more readily carry the network, and perhaps there would be enough big name teams so that those cable systems east of the Mississippi would also be less resistant to carrying the network.

 

[jumbopackage]

The best thing the BTN did (from a business standpoint) is have a deal with DirecTv before they launched. This gave them cash to survive the short term and leverage over the cable companies while negotiating long term deals.

I think any Big 12 channel would have to do something similar to survive.

That's because BTN is partially owned by DirecTV.

Also, BTN had deals in place with the majority of it's partners before launch. Obviously the Pac-10/Big 12 would have to do something similar, but they are dealing with a much more diverse customer base, including over half of the country geographically (basically everywhere west of the Mississippi), while the BTN only really had to do deals with a handful of providers.

I would think an advantage of this network would be that they would be able to show more live sports action for a bigger part of the day due to the time difference. For FB, by staggering start times, they could start with a Big 12 game at 11:00 AM Central and start the final Pac-10 game at 7:00 PM Pacific (9:00 PM Central). By the time that last Pac-10 game finishes, that's over 12 hours of continuous live football.

Maybe this would make the network more attractive than a network that has to show more recorded action.

That still ignores the fact that you're going to have to find a way to produce every single game. That's not cheap. And then you're going to have to get providers to give you 5 or so stations to broadcast them on. The BTN itself has 3 or 4 already, and that's just for one conference, not two.

One channel might work if you only want to show 3 or 4 games a day, but that leaves everyone else in a worse situation than they are currently, since that means only 6-8 teams out of 22 would get on TV, and that's best case during conference play.

I thought the problem as far as BTN getting on cable systems was primarily with cable networks outside of Big Ten geographic areas, and that they were readily added within the Big Ten geographic areas (or at least added with less resistance).

As the Big 12/Pac-10 network would be relevant to pretty much every market west of the Mississippi, perhaps cable networks there would more readily carry the network, and perhaps there would be enough big name teams so that those cable systems east of the Mississippi would also be less resistant to carrying the network.

BTN and Mediacom were at an impasse for quite some time. BTN's business model pretty much required them to be on the basic tier, and Mediacom didn't want to give up bandwidth down there in analog land, and wanted BTN on a premium digital tier. That was the big sticking point, along with cost.

I can't imagine that a Big XII/Pac 10 network would be able to make a go without something similar in place.

 

[jaretac]

Call it the West of the Mississippi Network (WMN) to differentiate it from ESPN and the BTN.

I would prefer something like the BigPac. I think anyone with half a brain could figure out that the Big stands for the Big 12 and not the Big ten.

Also, even if they are bound by contract until 2012, they are going to need to start getting things ready now so they can hit the ground running when the time comes. That means decideing to start a network, agreeing on how a two conference network would be shared and handling any legal issues now so that in 2011 they can start building.

 

[Clonehomer]

I just don't see this working due to the production costs. Not only do you have to supply the equipment, but with this large of a geographical area travelling those trucks around would be expensive and will take some time in between games.

I really think that there is enough interest to have a Big12 channel only. You can still stagger the football games to get 3 on TV, which with ABC/ESPN that should be most of them during conference play. For basketball you can show 2 per night during the week. Playing MTW, that will cover conference play right there. Also, for basketball you can keep your local contracts for games not able to be televised on the network with an option to stream to outside markets.

The problem I see is whether the conference will pull their head out of their butts and allow for more games on TV. For a while they didn't want 2 Big12 games to be televised at the same time. I really hope that they would be forward thinking enough to see something like this through.

 

[Clonehomer]

I would prefer something like the BigPac. I think anyone with half a brain could figure out that the Big stands for the Big 12 and not the Big ten.

Also, even if they are bound by contract until 2012, they are going to need to start getting things ready now so they can hit the ground running when the time comes. That means decideing to start a network, agreeing on how a two conference network would be shared and handling any legal issues now so that in 2011 they can start building.

I think they have. Remember last year they came out with a Big12 network and started producing some of their own games. I doubt they can publicly advertise the creation of a stand alone channel while they are still under contract. The nice thing is that if they drop the FSN/Versus while they get this thing going they still have their larger ESPN contract to fall back on while they get the market share they need.

 

[jbhtexas]

I just don't see this working due to the production costs. Not only do you have to supply the equipment, but with this large of a geographical area travelling those trucks around would be expensive and will take some time in between games.

Just curious...why does every game have to be a major production? Why not have a few key games typically produced, and then use a CloneZone approach for the rest. A couple of camera angles for the video, and for the audio use one of the team radio broadcasts. With digital transport streams, I think you can have multiple audio channels, so put each team's radio broadcast on one audio channel.

 

[Clonehomer]

One last thing. I would love to see them partner with Comcast/NBC to make this happen. The BTN partnered with DirecTV / NewsCorp and I think that really hamstrung their dealings with cable companies. Comcast has a huge footprint already so getting this on the necessary TV sets wouldn't be as big of a problem.

Also, by dealing with NBC, when the ABC/ESPN contract comes along in 2016, you might have the opportunity to move your game of the week or more to NBC depending on what they want to do with ND. Even if they continue their contract with ND, that still leaves one or two more slots during the day. At very worst it gives you more leverage when dealing with ESPN.

 

[jumbopackage]

I just don't see this working due to the production costs. Not only do you have to supply the equipment, but with this large of a geographical area travelling those trucks around would be expensive and will take some time in between games.

I really think that there is enough interest to have a Big12 channel only. You can still stagger the football games to get 3 on TV, which with ABC/ESPN that should be most of them during conference play. For basketball you can show 2 per night during the week. Playing MTW, that will cover conference play right there. Also, for basketball you can keep your local contracts for games not able to be televised on the network with an option to stream to outside markets.

The problem I see is whether the conference will pull their head out of their butts and allow for more games on TV. For a while they didn't want 2 Big12 games to be televised at the same time. I really hope that they would be forward thinking enough to see something like this through.

The Big 12 wants all of their games to be televised. Why would they not? And they don't have any say, really, in what does get telecast and when. Fox owns the rights to the broadcasts, though, and can do with them as they please. They are the ones that don't want the competition, and rightfully so. So either schedule the games around it, or don't put them on TV. Pretty simple.

Just curious...why does every game have to be a major production? Why not have a few key games typically produced, and then use a CloneZone approach for the rest. A couple of camera angles for the video, and for the audio use one of the team radio broadcasts. With digital transport streams, I think you can have multiple audio channels, so put each team's radio broadcast on one audio channel.

Firstly, people will ***** about it. And secondly, having any production requires a pretty major production. You can't just swap in radio guys over top the TV. It's a different type of announcing, and a different style, IMO.

Do you really think that DirecTV et al, let alone customers, are going to be thrilled with a high school announcements-quality product they are paying millions for?

 

[tejasclone]

Just curious...why does every game have to be a major production? Why not have a few key games typically produced, and then use a CloneZone approach for the rest. A couple of camera angles for the video, and for the audio use one of the team radio broadcasts. With digital transport streams, I think you can have multiple audio channels, so put each team's radio broadcast on one audio channel.

I thought that the Big 12 put in the restriction that there can't be a local broadcast (via TV or online) of an otherwise untelevised game? Unless this is a restriction enforced on them by ABC/ESPN, FSN, and Versus, why would they change that policy when they create their own network?