Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Why does anyone care about LHN?

T

TedKumsher

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2007
2,681
664
113
52
Ames
It's not like we're trying to get equal revenue sharing from schools' donors (T. Boone Pickens) or states' support. 1st and 2nd tier equal revenue should be sufficient for maintaining a strong overall conference. Consider 3rd tier rights the same as alumni donations -- each school gets what they can.

It's sad enough that TV money from football is the primary source of revenue for many/most/all? schools in BCS conferences.
 
#1 - Money
#1A - Recruiting Advantage

Now, as an ISU fan, I'm not concerned about it at all, because its not like we are going to beat Texas for recruits from their home state anyway. But its a major issue of concern for schools like Oklahoma and A&M.
 
I don't really see a huge recruiting advantage. It's not like Texas tells a recruit IF, and ONLY IF you sign with us, we'll put your high school game on the LHN. Getting on the LHN is just another way to get seen by anyone around the nation. ESPN has high school games on. It's an advantage to Texas high school players -- more attention for them. It's just more attention nationally, not just from Texas.

Money -- like I already said -- we're not trying to get an equal share from their boosters. At some point, if they can get the money, they deserve it. We also get 3rd tier revenue, just obviously not as much. We have boosters, just not as big or as many. We're not going to have any money from the state anymore -- I don't know if Texas does or various other schools do. I think tier 1 and 2 is enough for a stable competitive conference.
 
It's kind of the rule of diminishing returns for Texas. And, truth be told, a bit of that money is going back to their university's general fund.

My biggest concern is being able to see our game at Texas that's on LHN.
 
I don't really have a problem with it. I'd like to see a system where everyone shares something like 1/3 of their 3rd tier income. And then every 3rd tier platform gets access to general Big 12 programming such as a conference recap show and maybe non-revenue sports championships. Also, allow HS sports, but make it region-wide and let ALL 3rd tier platforms in the conference have access to the broadcasts (paying fees to each other to finance the actual broadcast crew). UT keeps its network and still makes a ton of cash while solidifying the conference. Everyone else gets a small portion of that LHN money, but also gets additional programming for their own 3rd tier platform.

I can see why OU and ATM were mad about the LHN, they actually have a chance to beat UT on a recruit, but the conference is going to have to live with at least some aspect of it. If UT was forced to give up their entire LHN and make it a B12N, they would likely just go to the Pac 12 out of spite.
 
TedKumsher said:
I don't really see a huge recruiting advantage. It's not like Texas tells a recruit IF, and ONLY IF you sign with us, we'll put your high school game on the LHN. Getting on the LHN is just another way to get seen by anyone around the nation. ESPN has high school games on. It's an advantage to Texas high school players -- more attention for them. It's just more attention nationally, not just from Texas.

Money -- like I already said -- we're not trying to get an equal share from their boosters. At some point, if they can get the money, they deserve it. We also get 3rd tier revenue, just obviously not as much. We have boosters, just not as big or as many. We're not going to have any money from the state anymore -- I don't know if Texas does or various other schools do. I think tier 1 and 2 is enough for a stable competitive conference.
Click to expand...

Dodds is planning to provide $5M annually from LHN to the UT General Fund for Academics.

As long as LHN does not air live games or video of unsigned HS recruits, I don't think LHN provides a significant recruiting advantage for UT.

And I agree that full sharing of 1st and 2nd tier TV revenues with agreement reached on LHN content will be sufficient to provide B12 stability. If that doesn't satisfy OU and Mizzou, they will head to the SEC.
 
TedKumsher said:
It's not like we're trying to get equal revenue sharing from schools' donors (T. Boone Pickens) or states' support. 1st and 2nd tier equal revenue should be sufficient for maintaining a strong overall conference. Consider 3rd tier rights the same as alumni donations -- each school gets what they can.

It's sad enough that TV money from football is the primary source of revenue for many/most/all? schools in BCS conferences.
Click to expand...

Why do any Conferences have revenue sharing of third tier rights? Texas has a huge monetary advantage over other schools. This deal with espn is not just a donation it is paying for content that will involve other members of your conference. The fact of the matter is that the ISU's of the world can not compete with Texas in revenue, but we still compete against you on the field and enable you to be part of a Conference. This is very important to Texas.

Should ISU not want to share in what it is helping create? What is it that Texas is afraid of? An even playing field? Why does the NFL have revenue sharing? Should the Cowboys pay the Vikings? They do, so email Jerry Jones and find out why he agrees to it.

I don't think we need to get greedy on our end, but the Big 12 should have somehting comparable to other conferences. The next commissioner can make their recommendations.
 
Last edited:
ThatllDoCy said:
Why do any Conferences have revenue sharing of third tier rights?
Click to expand...
I'm mostly just saying that 1st and 2nd should be important. 3rd tier shouldn't be break-up-a-conference important.
Texas has a huge monetary advantage over other schools. This deal with espn is not just a donation it is paying for content that will involve other members of your conference.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it will involve other members -- and if it does there will almost certainly be reciprocated money involved. At the very least -- I can't imagine they could require a conference opponent to accept the LHN. Much like both teams have to agree to move a conference game to a Friday (presumably for better TV).
The fact of the matter is that the ISU's of the world can not compete with Texas in revenue, but we still compete against you on the field and enable you to be part of a Conference. This is very important to Texas.

Should ISU not want to share in what it is helping create? What is it that Texas is afraid of? An even playing field? Why does the NFL have revenue sharing? Should the Cowboys pay the Vikings? They do, so email Jerry Jones and find out why he agrees to it.
Click to expand...
Sure. My point is this is accomplished well enough with tier 1 and tier 2.
I don't think we need to get greedy on our end, but the Big 12 should have somehting comparable to other conferences. The next commissioner can make their recommendations.
Click to expand...
 
UT has biggest athletic budget in the NCAA and this will ice their cake. OU is jeolous.
 
TedKumsher said:
It's not like we're trying to get equal revenue sharing from schools' donors (T. Boone Pickens) or states' support. 1st and 2nd tier equal revenue should be sufficient for maintaining a strong overall conference. Consider 3rd tier rights the same as alumni donations -- each school gets what they can.

It's sad enough that TV money from football is the primary source of revenue for many/most/all? schools in BCS conferences.
Click to expand...

Because in reality it should be called ESPNUT. It is not the extra $15 million. It's their brand and if those delta bravos at ESPN want to pay them so be it. It's about content and how that changes over time. Who says 5 years from now it isn't "Tier 2" content under some fine print and we're back in the same boat. They are asking to park their 120 foot yacht in the Big 12 harbor with all of our smaller boats and promising not to steal our girlfriends, take our beer and keep us up at night with the awesome sound system. It's just trouble.
 
Last edited:
TedKumsher said:
It's not like we're trying to get equal revenue sharing from schools' donors (T. Boone Pickens) or states' support. 1st and 2nd tier equal revenue should be sufficient for maintaining a strong overall conference. Consider 3rd tier rights the same as alumni donations -- each school gets what they can.

It's sad enough that TV money from football is the primary source of revenue for many/most/all? schools in BCS conferences.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you, never understood why everyone was up in arms about LHN. Would it have been better if we had a conference network? Yes, but the Big 12 couldn't get it done because of competing interests (I'm looking at you aTm, Nebby, and Boomer), or in other words schools that thought they could pull it off on their own.

I didn't see the big deal with HS games even though the NCAA struck it down. Texas is such a talent rich state that he seems impossible for them to show games with only Texas recruits. One would have to believe that a number of other schools recruits would be playing in those games that would have been televised. I actually thought is was kind of cool idea for the kids to be able to play on TV without being an Under Armour All American.
 
I am OK with the 0/100 percent revenue split.

At the same time I think people can make a strong argument that there should be some degree of sharing, something in between that. That would maintain some balance between reward and incentive.

Obviously as a Cyclone fan I would prefer full LHN revenue sharing.

The HS highlights and recruiting advantage is just really problematic though, especially for a team like OU, for obvious reasons. There shouldn't really be any of that IMO.

If revenues were shared and it were the Big 12 network maybe that would be OK. But I suppose then you wouldn't have the need to fill so much air time. Or something like Frak's idea here. There could be a market for HS football games or highlights. That could be a way to get around an outright ban. Reading Frak's post there that makes a lot of sense to me.

http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2413871#post2413438
 
I think the only entity that cares about the LHN right now is ESPN...since they sank $15 mil. A year in that thing PROVIDED that it would be showing more football...a conference game each year, HS football games, and HS football highlights. I don't care if Texas has a network that won't allow ANY of those things in the future. I would hope that stipulation would remain with in-conference BB too.

Let them keep their dumb network...let others create their own. But...wouldn't it make more sense economically to make it a Big12 Network?I guess not if ESPN already laid the money down. I don't remember the contract, but aren't there provions in it that allow ESPN to drop it with the lack of the above-mentioned content? Might be something to look out for.
 
TedKumsher said:
It's not like we're trying to get equal revenue sharing from schools' donors (T. Boone Pickens) or states' support. 1st and 2nd tier equal revenue should be sufficient for maintaining a strong overall conference. Consider 3rd tier rights the same as alumni donations -- each school gets what they can.

It's sad enough that TV money from football is the primary source of revenue for many/most/all? schools in BCS conferences.
Click to expand...

I don't care about LHN at all. It does make us look very small time when we're the only major conference who doesn't divide up the first tier TV contract equally. That's the main source of instability in my opinion. It's pretty much proven at this point that this was a huge mistake for Big 12 health.

Of course OU, A&M and Nebraska were for that instability before they were against it.

Split the overall conference deal and let every school do what they will with a solo or joint network short of using it to broadcast their recruits high school games.
 
The whole enchilada for OU and aTm is that UT showing any video on LHN for Texas prospects gives Bevo a huge recruiting advantage against the rest of the conference. aTm switching to the SEC was their solution to the problem. OU's bluff was a better strategy IMO. Hopefully, the remaining eight stay together as a bloc and put limitations on what can be shown on LHN in regards to HS recruiting prospects. I, personally, have no problem having UT show one, or two conference games per year on LHN as long as their opponent gets a fair return. Any content regarding Texas HS prospects is an issue with me.
 
LHN isn't the problem, Texas scored a big deal that wasn't worth the content - things that make you go hmm, the back door dealing with ESPN, ESPN pusing an agenda that results in an unfair marketing advantage for Texas to try and recoup their money, Texas wanting a 2nd conference game and then likely a third, etc. If there was a mistake made when the conference was "saved" last time, it was not defining what individual networks could and could not do, when Texas and ESPN pushed the envelope, it resulted in another member leaving. That is a problem. You don't see Auburn threatening to leave because Alabama has an unfair advantage or Michigan because Ohio State or even a lesser team like Arkansas because they can't keep up with the elites. Harmony in the 12 is possible now, but Texas has made it clear they see committment in terms of until a better deal is possible - read cuddling up with Notre Dame and ruining another conference. Notre Dame never needs to be in the 12. Big 12 needs to strengthen and if Texas can't live within its confines, be prepared to live with out them. Every other conference made the decision to live with out them. Big 12 needs to learn how and if they can, that likely will keep them in and in check
 
They have one show where the entire Longhorn practice is televised. Then there is a Mack Brown staff meeting where the assistant coaches detail every injury on the team. In the last five minutes they first twenty scripted offensive plays are reviewed in detail.
 
drednot57 said:
The whole enchilada for OU and aTm is that UT showing any video on LHN for Texas prospects gives Bevo a huge recruiting advantage against the rest of the conference. aTm switching to the SEC was their solution to the problem. OU's bluff was a better strategy IMO. Hopefully, the remaining eight stay together as a bloc and put limitations on what can be shown on LHN in regards to HS recruiting prospects. I, personally, have no problem having UT show one, or two conference games per year on LHN as long as their opponent gets a fair return. Any content regarding Texas HS prospects is an issue with me.
Click to expand...


Do they have to pay the other team to show the game
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom