Agree wholeheartedly. Also I don't think the B1G is into expanding into a non-contiguous state or pissing off current conference members like Nebraska who ran away from Texas. It would also probably irritate Ohio State/Michigan, the other anchors etc. They have been working toward owning/distributing their content by cutting out the middle man like ESPN for years and it takes a lot of conference cohesion to accomplish that. Texas to he B1G probably leads to a conference split down the road for them. Quite the opposite.
***Official Big 12 Expansion Thread '16***
- Thread starter cyclones500
- Start date
Super conferences probably will happen but I think there will be five of them. Remember the other conferences all have crappy/low exposure teams. B1G: Purdue/Indiana/Rutgers. Talk about dilutive. ACC: Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, and others. SEC: Vanderbilt. PAC: Oregon State, Washington State, Utah. I don't see how adding say BYU/Cincinnat/Colorado State/UCONN is going to dilute he conference any more than those conferences. Yes I know the B12 has dead weight already basically but I still don't think adding those schools would dilute the B12 anymore than the listed schools above and many others that could be considered dilutive that I didn't list.
Agree with some of the 4 X 16 points...it sounds nice and neat but there is no way long term. What if someone like ucf becomes a major power and major TV draw in the next 20 years...you're telling me they don't get in down the road?
And no bcs school has ever gone from making 25 mil a year to 3 mil a year (what the aac gets)...I'd think someone might be suing.
And if costs continue to rise what's to stop the top half of every conference from dropping the bottom half of each conference and making a national 32 team NFL type conference that would probably double the per team TV money?
I've said it before but there really needs to be a commish of all NCAA looking out for the greater good of the whole for these non-profit organizations and putting some geographical sense back into things
And no bcs school has ever gone from making 25 mil a year to 3 mil a year (what the aac gets)...I'd think someone might be suing.
And if costs continue to rise what's to stop the top half of every conference from dropping the bottom half of each conference and making a national 32 team NFL type conference that would probably double the per team TV money?
I've said it before but there really needs to be a commish of all NCAA looking out for the greater good of the whole for these non-profit organizations and putting some geographical sense back into things
Do you have any business experience, specifically in corporate finance?
You have it turned around. If ESPN continues to lose money on the Longhorn Network, the smart business decision will be for ESPN to buyout the Longhorns. Not only does ESPN have annual rights fees which will reach $20M by 2031, but additionally there are annual operating expenses for the Longhorn Network incurred by ESPN.
Do I think this is going to happen soon? No. I would expect ESPN will make a decision in 4-5 years on whether to continue on with the Longhorn Network through 2031.
If ESPN decides to cut their loses, they will offer ESPN a discounted payout of the remaining rights fees. It would be a win-win, ESPN saves money and Texas gets a lumpsum or annual payouts to have the Longhorn Network go away. No reason to throw good money after bad.
As I mentioned, this would be a Gold Mine for the Longhorns. Not only do they get paid for closing down the Longhorn Network, they remove any 3rd Tier rights hurdles to joining the Big12 or SEC AND can make the higher fees that the Big10 or SEC are offering. In essence they will be getting paid twice for their tier 3 rights- as part of the Big10/SEC TV contract on the Longhorn Network buyout.
Last edited:
He goes on to say in the article that ESPN isn't thrilled, but Fox is wanting more content.
I have so many thoughts about 4x16, I can't launch into all the specifics right now.
As cyman05 said, it’s a tidy idea, especially attractive with the recently discovered concept of holding a 4-team national playoff!! (Which I predict would go to 8 teams even if FBS lopped off it’s lower-66 and relegated those schools to The New Division 1-AA.)
I think it’s more nuanced than typical analysis suggests.
As cyman05 said, it’s a tidy idea, especially attractive with the recently discovered concept of holding a 4-team national playoff!! (Which I predict would go to 8 teams even if FBS lopped off it’s lower-66 and relegated those schools to The New Division 1-AA.)
I think it’s more nuanced than typical analysis suggests.
There's only one problem with you theory and that is that Texas will not take anything less than what they are owed..ever. Why would they? But ESPN has no interest in dropping that contract..$15-$20 mil may seem like a ton to ISu fans and it is but to ESPN or FOx it is literally nothing. ESPN does not want TExas going anywhere because right now ESPN owns the most powerful college football brand in Texas and they want to continue to own it even at a slight loss a year.
Texas will never go to the SEC..ever. Academically for one..Texas A&M for two..and recruiting for 3..Not to mention their odds of every reaching playoffs is almost zero joining the SEC..at least right now.
And..I just listed to 2 pods with the top 2 Texas insiders who talked about the LHN..both of which indicated that ESPN want to maintain owning Texas and Texas won't ever take what isn't owed them or less. I don't disagree with you that on the outside that would seem logical..But this is Texas and nothing is logical with them.
In 2010 and 2011, we were this close to 6, and then 4 Big 12 schools leaving for the PAC. This would have started the race to 16. This is what every damned sports writer wanted to happen.
But ESPN and Fox stepped up,and threw a **** load of money at Texas, and the whole Big 12 in order to prevent it. Without LHN and the massively improved Big 12 contract, we'd already have Super Cnferences, and our inclusion is anyone's guess.
The networks have made it pretty clear that they want to prevent the 4 X 16 thing from happening by their previous actions.
Exactly. OU has way more leverage than Texas does. OU can pretty much pack up and go wherever they want - all Texas can do is leverage against the Big 12.
By the time the GOR is over, Texas may actually start seeing profits from the LHN. Texas receives 70% of profits once ESPN has gained back their initial investment. Yes the LHN is losing money, but they are forecasting it could finally be profitable at the end of this year:
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2016/6/23/12015740/longhorn-network-cancellation-espn-texas
The incentive is there to keep Texas in the Big 12, and the contract with ESPN pretty much eliminates them from joining the PAC12 and Big10 due to those conferences affiliation with FOX - ESPN would never agree to terminate that contract to allow Texas to work with a competing network. That leaves SEC, which from a competition stand-point would make Texas a "peer" and not one of the elite, or they could join ACC and be an "affiliate" member - similar to Notre Dame.
Interesting insights on broadcasts if there is expansion.
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2016/08/weeknight-scheduling-in-future-big-12.html
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2016/08/weeknight-scheduling-in-future-big-12.html
I've been saying for years, why not move more conference games to Thursdays and Fridays???
If maximizing revenue is a key to conference success, then why concede Thur/Fri time slots to lesser conferences and HS games?
I get Thursday games, but I imagine viewership on Fridays would be dismal. I don't study the ratings, but who watches TV on Friday nights?
First, ESPNs expenses to the LHN are not limited to their rights fee of $15-$20M annually. They are incurring annual operating expenses to run the LHN. Do you know what those fees are? They could easily exceed $15-$20M annually. In business it all comes down to profit. So far the LHN is not profitable for ESPN, if it continues to not be profitable, ESPN will buyout Texas. You need to remember, ESPN is owned by Disney and in the end they are all accountable to shareholders. Disney isn't interested in losing money.
As far as Texas' brand. In 2010 it was probably worth ESPN creating the LHN, but today the Texas brand is diminished. Texas is still very powerful, but lackluster FB and MBB teams over the last 5 years has decreased their national interest. If I am given a choice to watch Texas, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Stanford, etc on any given Saturday- Texas wouldn't be in my top 10. None of those schools have a LHN.
In answer to your question why would Texas take less than the annual rights payments stipulated in their contract. If you are familiar with Finance you would understand the time value of money. If I am owed $175M in total annual payments over the next 10 years, I may befinancially equal to take $140M today. I can then turn around and invest the $140M or use it to pay off debts.
Same concept as being a lottery winner. The person who recently won $475, could take the entire $475 over 30 years OR take $330M today. Taking the $330M today isn't taking less, because if they invest it and earn 2.73% on their money, they will breakeven.
Last edited:
I rarely watch TV period, but it doesn't matter when ISU plays, I'm watching. That's the point. In this day and age, there is no reason to not have 100% of your games televised if you're a P5 league.
Maybe the data says otherwise, but I would imagine ISU/K-State for instance, would have higher veiwership on a Thurs/Fri than they would going up against 4-5 other games on a Saturday.
I could be wrong of course.
It's more valuable for ESPN to put a P-5 game on Friday with no competition than on Saturday when maybe 6 P-5 games are being played at the same time.
Because ticket sales matter too. And while a single Thursday/Friday game a season isn't a huge deal doing it often would be a huge hit to attendance.
Check out this link: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
You can see that the P5 games on ESPN on Friday nights are outdrawing P5 games on ESPN2 on Saturdays. For example, the Cincinnati-BYU game on Friday, Oct. 16 (future Big 12 game - but not even a P5 game last year) pulled in 1.49M viewers on ESPN while the highest-rated game the following day that wasn't on a network or ESPN drew 1.21M on ESPN2 (Oregon-Washington).
So ESPN would rather shift some of the inventory that they'd otherwise be putting on ESPN2 or ESPNU to Friday night and get more viewers that way.
I think we have to see more Thursday prime time games for these hugh TV deals to work. However, college football backed off and the NFL jumped in. So that splits viewership. In the end, the more games ESPN can show on ABC, ESPN or ESPN2 vs. ESPN3 or even ACC/SEC Networks the more money they can get from advertisers. The trade off, if there aren't quality games on the SEC or ACC Network, why should cable or dish companies include in their basic package? So far it hasn't hurt the Big10 to show lower quality games.
As far as Friday night games, the logic has always been college football didn't want to detract from HS football. That is probably smart, if people lose interest in supporting HS sports, in the end it hurts college. However, in some big cities HS football games are played on Friday afternoons, so playing college FB on Friday nighrs doesn't create a conflict.
