Berry Tramel: OU President would like to end Longhorn Network

[WVBlue]

By Berry Tramel
News Oklahoma
Jan 14, 2016


David Boren has his sights set on something bigger than conference expansion or a Big 12 title game. The OU president is focused on what started this whole “psychologically disadvantaged” Big 12 in the first place.

The Longhorn Network.

On Wednesday, day the NCAA voted to allow the Big 12 to stage a football championship game even without divisional play or at least 12 members, Boren released a statement to the OU Daily, the campus newspaper.

“The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least 12 members, we do not have a conference network and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference.”

What Boren is talking about is the end of Bevo TV.

LINK to continue


http://newsok.com/david-boren-would-like-to-end-the-longhorn-network/article/5472488

 

[skygusty]

I personally think that the Longhorn Network is a bad deal for everyone but Texas. If Texas can be offered a deal that maintains or increases their revenue, maybe they go for a conference network. The conference can now have a championship game that in most years would be more interesting and better attended than the ACC's CCG. The conference would be stupid not to see how this disadvantage plays out if 2 of the 3 on Borens list are eliminated. Obviously other schools feel differently about expansion and the candidates available. If they add more schools to the conference it is irrevocable. I think they are smart to have the CCG option, smart to get the conversation going about a conference network and smart to assess options for future expansion, as well as smart not to jump the gun and add schools with no real football tradition, that are not a cultural fit and increase travel difficulties for a larger portion of the conference. I think that even if the BIG12 would expand they would probably not significantly increase the probability that a BIG12 team is included in the 4 team field. They have about a 20% (1 in 5) chance of being left out any given year, maybe slightly greater, say 21%. The SEC may have a slightly smaller chance of being left out, say 19%. So far, the conference has been in 50% of the playoffs. People are projecting that Baylor will make the playoffs next year, giving the BIG12 a 66% inclusion rate even without a conference network or championship game over a 3 year span. What you would like over the years is an 80% inclusion rate for every conference but that is the egalitarian ideal. Realistically I think most people expect that the inclusion rates will be higher for the SEC and the BIG10, and lower for the other 3 Power 5 conferences. Notre Dame is the wildcard still and you have to expect them to make the playoffs someday. If they go to a six or 8 team playoff the whole freakin exercise is moot. Every P5 conference is almost guaranteed to have a representative in the playoffs every year if that happens. The BIG12 wouldn't NEED a CCG or to add teams they obviously can't agree on to make the playoffs almost every year.

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

Now, that's what Boren is really upset about. The championship game and expansion advocacy would cease in a heartbeat if UT agreed to give up LHN and facilitate a real Big 12 Network.

 

[topdecktiger]

If Texas can be offered a deal that maintains or increases their revenue, maybe they go for a conference network

That's the problem, figuring out how to do that. Texas gets $15 million a year from the Longhorn Network. By contrast, the SEC schools get $5 million apiece from the SECN, and the Big Ten $8 million from the BTN. It's going to be hard to match the money that Texas gets now.

 

[skygusty]

Now, that's what Boren is really upset about. The championship game and expansion advocacy would cease in a heartbeat if UT agreed to give up LHN and facilitate a real Big 12 Network.

And what a great deal for Texas eh? In return for giving up the Longhorn Network and a reduction in revenue of 8 million dollars or so, we want to expand the league so that Texas also effectively has less political influence in a conference that is still heavily Texas-centric. In return they get the opportunity to haul their team all the way to Connecticut, a team that has only been a Division 1-A program since 2000, the last year that Texas won a National Championship. What a deal for Texas. The obstacle to having a conference network is not having at least 12 teams, it is Texas. None of these proposals are in their best interests. If a coach ever turns that program around to national relevance they are going to be even more intractable. Boren thinks he sees a weak spot in their armor right now and he is making his play.

 

[Round Hillbilly]

sounds like someone is laying the groundwork for bolting in a few years

 

[Low Mountains Drifter]

When the LHN started:

http://thebiglead.com/2011/08/08/lo...s-and-espn-revealed-big-12-future-not-bright/

More recently:


http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/6/5/8733131/texas-longhorn-network-money-revenue


That quite a sweet deal for UT (maybe not so much for ESPN). I don't blame Boren for resenting it, and it probably hurts the smaller schools in the Big 12 more than OU to not have a real Big 12 network.

There likely is no way that UT could get the same amount it is now guaranteed for LHN from a Big 12 network.

Now, ESPN, might well now be looking at internal projections that LHN will never become very profitable for it. Could that PLUS the desires of the other 9 schools result in negotiations to transform the LHN into a Big 12 Network with Texas gradually swallowing reduced money that at least diminishes the disparity? If the Big 12 network could make more overall than LHN , the amount UT would forego wouldn't necessarily be that huge when you look at its entire AD budget. The loss of prestige or "face" might actually be a bigger deal to UT than a few million bucks given how wealthy it is.

The other thing is that because ESPN owns the rights even if UT switches conference and obviously other conferences have networks of their own and would not welcome LHN either, that both complicates UT's ability to switch a bit, and gives OU (and the rest of us if we side with OU) somewhat more leverage because OU probably would have an easier time finding a new home quickly if it came to that.

 

[wbgvwbgv]

sounds like someone is laying the groundwork for bolting in a few years

LOL - a University President is talking about the conference expanding and establishing a conference network and you interpret that as they are getting ready to bolt. What an asinine assumption.

 

[Round Hillbilly]

LOL - a University President is talking about the conference expanding and establishing a conference network and you interpret that as they are getting ready to bolt. What an asinine assumption.[/QUOT


asinine...really? first, what have i ever done or said to you to deserve "asinine"?. second, the longhorn network was a divisive instrument with the conference members that left already, so it's not such a longshot to think that the longhorn network is causing issues again. so tell me, given our history of the conference so far and the conference championship decision recently, will the big 12 expand to 12? will the big 12 have a conference championship game? will texas forego the longhorn network in lieu of a big 12 conference network? lastly, i don't think boren is a guy that blows smoke without having a backup plan. if by the end of the grant of rights, or the timeframe where the conference can extend those grant of rights, if any of those things boren has mentioned doesn't happen he has his excuse to leave.

 

[skygusty]

I think in part, expansion is seen as a way to dilute the influence of Texas and another way to get more votes for things that are unpopular with the Longhorns. There is a lot of political maneuvering going on in the background.