Big 10 signs massive new TV deal...

[Rootmaster]

so for all those saying there was no money left and that's why the Big 12 didn't expand...somebody found the cash. Rutgers and Maryland come out smelling just fine.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...eal-ahead-push-revenue-totals-past-sec-big-12

 

[Mountain Man]

That is due to the NY/NJ and bal/DC population markets.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

so for all those saying there was no money left and that's why the Big 12 didn't expand...somebody found the cash. Rutgers and Maryland come out smelling just fine.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...eal-ahead-push-revenue-totals-past-sec-big-12

Most people knew this was going to be a large contract, although not as big as some people were predicting. The B1G is the most coveted, with the most established historical programs, covering the largest population of all P5 conferences.

 

[ColoradoMountaineer]

That is due to the NY/NJ and bal/DC population markets.

They also have chicago

 

[Buckaineer]

So now that we know the Big Ten contracts through 2023, we can estimate the discrepencies between that conference and Oklahoma from 2017 through the end of the BTN contract. Oklahoma makes the most off of tier 3 tv-and being the premiere school in the conference, they are going to be the most highly sought after school for conferences like the Big Ten and Pac 12 and SEC other than possibly Texas (which doesn't benefit the SEC as much).

Texas is fine no matter what because they have the LHN and its paying out enough to keep them close to even with these other conferences through 2023.

Big Ten schools look to be receiving payouts per school from $48 million to $50 million per school during that time.

OU has stated their tier 3 earnings are about $5 million per year. With the BIG 12 payouts going forward through 2023 then, OU should be in the $39 to $48 million range (their tier 3 deal expires in 2020 though--so alot will depend on if they can get more for that contract).

The discrepencies will hit hardest in the first few years of the Big Ten deal. Big Ten schools will be making much more than BIG 12 schools initially--around $8 million more (depending on how their new deals are averaged out)--another factor is some schools won't receive a full share for awhile still, so other schools there could make even more as a result by getting part of the partial shares for RU and UMD for example.

In the last few years as the BIG 12 contract grows closer to the end, the discrepencies will decrease significantly to from around $1-$3 million in favor of the B10 schools (unless something happens with bowls in 2019 to boost the Big Ten even more).

All in all B10 schools stand to make above $30 million more per school than OU during the period from 2017-2023 and that isn't good. The Big Ten will get a brand new contract in 2023--and thats right about when the BIG 12 will be trying to get into negotiations for a new deal to help them keep pace--but with no new inventory, no new markets, and likely tv ratings that have been flat for a decade if not declining due to being pushed off networks like FOX in favor of the Big Ten. Also expect lots of years out of the playoff due to the guaranteed CCG rematch which won't help negotiations for a new tv deal.

Other BIG 12 schools will be further behind financially by at least a few million more per year unless they can gain better tier 3 deals than OU.

 

[Rootmaster]

The point made by some about markets in Big 10...NY, Bal/Was, Chicago is spot on...a huge factor in media negotiations. Why some on this forum continue to say markets don't matter is akin to saying the Titanic can't sink. Standing pat on expansion for the Big 12-2=10 is a recipe for implosion at some future date. Broadcast, cable, streaming etc...in the end the advertisers are paying networks for eyeballs not for the outfits the cheer leaders wear. Beyond belief that university presidents could be so short sighted when markets like Orlando, Tampa, Houston, Denver, Memphis, Cincinnati and New England are available. Like it or not WVU needs to be included in a conference that delivers markets (because we don't have one) and Lubbock, Stillwater, and Waco won't cut it in the future. Come on Big 12-2=10...get real.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

So now that we know the Big Ten contracts through 2023, we can estimate the discrepencies between that conference and Oklahoma from 2017 through the end of the BTN contract. Oklahoma makes the most off of tier 3 tv-and being the premiere school in the conference, they are going to be the most highly sought after school for conferences like the Big Ten and Pac 12 and SEC other than possibly Texas (which doesn't benefit the SEC as much).

Texas is fine no matter what because they have the LHN and its paying out enough to keep them close to even with these other conferences through 2023.

Big Ten schools look to be receiving payouts per school from $48 million to $50 million per school during that time.

OU has stated their tier 3 earnings are about $5 million per year. With the BIG 12 payouts going forward through 2023 then, OU should be in the $39 to $48 million range (their tier 3 deal expires in 2020 though--so alot will depend on if they can get more for that contract).

The discrepencies will hit hardest in the first few years of the Big Ten deal. Big Ten schools will be making much more than BIG 12 schools initially--around $8 million more (depending on how their new deals are averaged out)--another factor is some schools won't receive a full share for awhile still, so other schools there could make even more as a result by getting part of the partial shares for RU and UMD for example.

In the last few years as the BIG 12 contract grows closer to the end, the discrepencies will decrease significantly to from around $1-$3 million in favor of the B10 schools (unless something happens with bowls in 2019 to boost the Big Ten even more).

All in all B10 schools stand to make above $30 million more per school than OU during the period from 2017-2023 and that isn't good. The Big Ten will get a brand new contract in 2023--and thats right about when the BIG 12 will be trying to get into negotiations for a new deal to help them keep pace--but with no new inventory, no new markets, and likely tv ratings that have been flat for a decade if not declining due to being pushed off networks like FOX in favor of the Big Ten. Also expect lots of years out of the playoff due to the guaranteed CCG rematch which won't help negotiations for a new tv deal.

Other BIG 12 schools will be further behind financially by at least a few million more per year unless they can gain better tier 3 deals than OU.

1. OU is NOT going to the PAC. The PAC make less than the BIG12, and the PACN is a mess. Plus Cable cutting is occurring at a much faster rate on paciffic cost then anywhere else in the country. OU does not want to be
2. OU is NOT going to B1G. You love looking into the past to predict the future. The B1G has never expanded with a non AAU school. Even Nebraska was AAU school before the invite. Penn State RU, and Maryland are also AAU schools. OU is not an AAU school and is at least 3 decades of making that status (if ever). Plus OU does not want to be two timezones east from the majority of other conference members.
3. SEC is the best option for both. SEC is and will be making a more money then the BIG12, and the conference is the most stable. OU brings a brand new market, adds to football prestige, and adds one of the top 2 historic BB programs in the country, the other being Kentucky already in the SEC.
4. ACC - At this time is not an option. ACC makes less then BIG12 (not even including 3rd tier), and the network in my opinion does not get off the ground unless ND joins.

 

[TexasforevEER]

The '$hiny $hoe$' are $alivating over the new Big 10 contract.

 

[Buckaineer]

1. OU is NOT going to the PAC. The PAC make less than the BIG12, and the PACN is a mess. Plus Cable cutting is occurring at a much faster rate on paciffic cost then anywhere else in the country. OU does not want to be
2. OU is NOT going to B1G. You love looking into the past to predict the future. The B1G has never expanded with a non AAU school. Even Nebraska was AAU school before the invite. Penn State RU, and Maryland are also AAU schools. OU is not an AAU school and is at least 3 decades of making that status (if ever). Plus OU does not want to be two timezones east from the majority of other conference members.
3. SEC is the best option for both. SEC is and will be making a more money then the BIG12, and the conference is the most stable. OU brings a brand new market, adds to football prestige, and adds one of the top 2 historic BB programs in the country, the other being Kentucky already in the SEC.
4. ACC - At this time is not an option. ACC makes less then BIG12 (not even including 3rd tier), and the network in my opinion does not get off the ground unless ND joins.

How do you know where OU is willing to go?

The Pac as a conference makes more than the BIG 12. They pay out less right now per member, because they created their own network without assistance from ESPN or FOX or someone, and they have to pay for it now by themselves. But they have been holding back payouts to members for years now--only distributing in the 60% -70% percent of revenues. Maybe they are holding some of that back to use to lure schools down the road? We'll see.

Once again making false claims about "cable cutting"? Guess you missed where the cable companies ESPN and FOX are signing deals with the Big Ten worth over $2 billion for the next 6 years?

The Big Ten would take OU in a heartbeat and everyone knows it except for apparently you. They've said before they would add Notre Dame and ND is NOT an AAU school. OU is one of the premiere sports institutions out there and they would compliment the poaching of Nebraska nicely (which also is no longer AAU) by adding their former rival. OU wants to be in a competitive and revenue stable conference and for that the Big Ten meets all their needs.

The timing of media deals for each conference coincides with exactly when the BIG 12 will have to renegotiate. The Big Ten very well may be positioning itself to help its partner conference out west which needs the BIG 12 schools to be successful long term-and has an aggressive commissioner as well not afraid to make moves of that sort. You'd have to be very naive to think they both will not try to lure a disgruntled OU away from the BIG 12 when that time comes. The Big Ten certainly has the revenue to do it.

The SEC is also a possibility although their revenues aren't going to be as high as the Big Ten's and not much different than BIG 12 revenues. If OSU also needs a home then maybe they'd go for both.

Its doubtful OU is interested in the ACC no matter what--doesn't make any sense on multiple fronts and even with a network which the ACC will probably add soon (without ND which is tied up with NBC and the BTN long term) it won't be more revenue than OU can make in the BIG 12 so it wouldn't matter.

For certain OU is going to be looking when the Big and Pac are getting new deals. They aren't going to be content making less than Purdue and Iowa and Northwestern for long.

 

[Buster68]

Maybe we should count our blessings. If Ollie hadn't got us into the B12, we could be with the gang of 5 and getting payouts of $2m or less. We are now included with the big boys and are in much better shape than we ever have been. And the future looks good, too.

 

[Buckaineer]

Interesting to note--had Texas not balked at merging the LHN into a BIG 12 network--and the conference could have launched one as Oklahoma's president pushed for---consultants had reported the earnings per school would be an additional $4 to $6 million per school.

So if it was right in the middle of that--$5 million extra--multiply that by 6 and what do you get? $30 million--or just right at the amount Big Ten schools will earn over what Oklahoma will earn for media rights from 2017-2023. So Boren knew exactly what he was talking about when he stressed the importance of getting that network and it putting the BIG 12 on par with the Big Ten and SEC. Unfortunately Texas didn't care- because they are ok no matter what and just assume every one else will indefinitely tag along.

 

[3xWVUenginEER]

For the month of June,
"Oklahoma can't do anything without OK State.
Kansas can't do anything without Kansas State.
Texas Tech, TCU, & now Baylow will do whatever Texas wants."

Add all that up and it equals status quo in the Big XII..... At least until B1G & SEC go to 16 by raiding ACC.

WVU & Iowa State are along for the ride. Just Enjoy it.

To be "Repeated" in July

 

[skygusty]

Interesting to note--had Texas not balked at merging the LHN into a BIG 12 network--and the conference could have launched one as Oklahoma's president pushed for---consultants had reported the earnings per school would be an additional $4 to $6 million per school.

So if it was right in the middle of that--$5 million extra--multiply that by 6 and what do you get? $30 million--or just right at the amount Big Ten schools will earn over what Oklahoma will earn for media rights from 2017-2023. So Boren knew exactly what he was talking about when he stressed the importance of getting that network and it putting the BIG 12 on par with the Big Ten and SEC. Unfortunately Texas didn't care- because they are ok no matter what and just assume every one else will indefinitely tag along.

Texas balked at turning over their property to the collective. Sorry Comrade Buckupov, that's not the way they do bidness in Texas. We already know your math skills are suspect so pardon us if we find your convoluted post questionable at best. Give us a link to that credible source that said Texas could be still be paid their 15 million LHN dollars and that other Big12 schools get 4 to 6 million more per year without affecting their Tier 3 rights, by adding two unnamed schools who are only going to get pro rata shares. And no, you don't get to add the CCG money because we already have that without expanding.

 

[Buckaineer]

Texas balked at turning over their property to the collective. Sorry Comrade Buckupov, that's not the way they do bidness in Texas. We already know your math skills are suspect so pardon us if we find your convoluted post questionable at best. Give us a link to that credible source that said Texas could be still be paid their 15 million LHN dollars and that other Big12 schools get 4 to 6 million more per year without affecting their Tier 3 rights, by adding two unnamed schools who are only going to get pro rata shares. And no, you don't get to add the CCG money because we already have that without expanding.

Oklahomas president isnt a credible source now? Guess that is why he chairs the BIG 12 s board of directors. He said it more than once-- but I guess since you only believe message board poster bs you wouldn't believe him.
None of the schools would own their tier 3 rights anymore if there was a network btw- the network would have replaced those and added $4-$6 million on top of that.

The only thing other schools added had to do with that conference network was A: provide the conference with enough inventory to have a network and B: add to the footprint so the conference could acquire a larger one for its base revenue from the network. Who they were wasn't as important as where. But then I'm trying to explain something to someone that thinks the cable industry died yesterday-- despite the fact ESPN and FOX cable outlets are signing contracts with the Big Ten for around $2.5 billion over the next six years. Oh, and that cannot understand that playing the same team twice to make it to a playoff birth is much more difficult than what the other conferences are doing.

Oh, and that worships UTs nutz

 

[Buckaineer]

so for all those saying there was no money left and that's why the Big 12 didn't expand...somebody found the cash. Rutgers and Maryland come out smelling just fine.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...eal-ahead-push-revenue-totals-past-sec-big-12

Exactly, cable isn't dying, and the networks aren't broke.

 

[skygusty]

Oklahomas president isnt a credible source now? Guess that is why he chairs the BIG 12 s board of directors. He said it more than once-- but I guess since you only believe message board poster bs you wouldn't believe him.
None of the schools would own their tier 3 rights anymore if there was a network btw- the network would have replaced those and added $4-$6 million on top of that.

The only thing other schools added had to do with that conference network was A: provide the conference with enough inventory to have a network and B: add to the footprint so the conference could acquire a larger one for its base revenue from the network. Who they were wasn't as important as where. But then I'm trying to explain something to someone that thinks the cable industry died yesterday-- despite the fact ESPN and FOX cable outlets are signing contracts with the Big Ten for around $2.5 billion over the next six years. Oh, and that cannot understand that playing the same team twice to make it to a playoff birth is much more difficult than what the other conferences are doing.

Oh, and that worships UTs nutz

Linky please, one that isn't 3 months old before Boren realized he was being advised by the clueless. Did you have that job for a while? Texas and OU will probably have to join the Big10 or the SEC to make that kind of money. They aren't going to get it by adding Appalachian State and Temple or any of the other teams out there who you claim don't matter. David Boren has been sounding a lot smarter about reality lately than you.

 

[skygusty]

Actually no, Boren's old opinions were never a credible source. This was what he believed at the time but he had the sense to hire consultants to tell him if he was right. He was not. Lots of articles out there like this one that questioned this whole process far more critically than you ever have. http://espn.go.com/college-football...-many-hurdles-big-12-tv-network-savior-league

 

[skygusty]

1. OU is NOT going to the PAC. The PAC make less than the BIG12, and the PACN is a mess. Plus Cable cutting is occurring at a much faster rate on paciffic cost then anywhere else in the country. OU does not want to be
2. OU is NOT going to B1G. You love looking into the past to predict the future. The B1G has never expanded with a non AAU school. Even Nebraska was AAU school before the invite. Penn State RU, and Maryland are also AAU schools. OU is not an AAU school and is at least 3 decades of making that status (if ever). Plus OU does not want to be two timezones east from the majority of other conference members.
3. SEC is the best option for both. SEC is and will be making a more money then the BIG12, and the conference is the most stable. OU brings a brand new market, adds to football prestige, and adds one of the top 2 historic BB programs in the country, the other being Kentucky already in the SEC.
4. ACC - At this time is not an option. ACC makes less then BIG12 (not even including 3rd tier), and the network in my opinion does not get off the ground unless ND joins.

Would the SEC break their no schools from the same state rule to add Texas? Pretty big plum... I have no problem believing that both Texas and Oklahoma could have made it known off the record that "If the conference does X we are going to explore other options." Who would you side with as president of one of the other universities if Texas and Oklahoma wanted different things?

 

[Buckaineer]

Linky please, one that isn't 3 months old before Boren realized he was being advised by the clueless. Did you have that job for a while? Texas and OU will probably have to join the Big10 or the SEC to make that kind of money. They aren't going to get it by adding Appalachian State and Temple or any of the other teams out there who you claim don't matter. David Boren has been sounding a lot smarter about reality lately than you.

Bs. If the conference added teams they were always going to get pro rata shares. The conference network is not dependent on specific schools , it's dependent on adding territory and markets with paying subscribers whether tv or Internet or whatever.

But it's all a moot point now. No more expansion and a CCG guaranteed to deliver the knockout punch . Now the conference is going to die- hope your happy, it's what you wanted. Don't worry you still have about 7 years to pretend the ACC is falling apart and will want to join in- LOL

 

[Buckaineer]

Actually no, Boren's old opinions were never a credible source. This was what he believed at the time but he had the sense to hire consultants to tell him if he was right. He was not. Lots of articles out there like this one that questioned this whole process far more critically than you ever have. http://espn.go.com/college-football...-many-hurdles-big-12-tv-network-savior-league

He just said the networks told him-- ESPN and FOX and that they couldn't do it with ten it had to be 12 or 14.

Guess they weren't credible either, certainly not like your sources telling you cable is dead and there's no more money for conferences from tv-- oh except if you are the Big Ten getting $2.5 billion

 

[Buckaineer]

The conversation is over. Those wishing for the death of the BIG 12 won. you should be happy.

It's simply a matter of time and both OU and Texas are already discussing it- OU publicly. THey will both be great, but ISU, WVU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and K State and TCU have uncertain futures. Some more than others. Unfortunately WVU is with the others right now.

All you internet lawyers who root for WVU should be looking into that " getting out of the GOR" trick you've been talking about for years-- Might not be best to wait through 2025.

 

[skygusty]

Here is one article where Boren is sounding smarter than Buck. http://www.oudaily.com/sports/oklah...cle_db80c264-37d5-11e6-abb2-ef6ef57b98c6.html

 

[skygusty]

The conversation is over. Those wishing for the death of the BIG 12 won. you should be happy.

It's simply a matter of time and both OU and Texas are already discussing it- OU publicly. THey will both be great, but ISU, WVU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and K State and TCU have uncertain futures. Some more than others. Unfortunately WVU is with the others right now.

All you internet lawyers who root for WVU should be looking into that " getting out of the GOR" trick you've been talking about for years-- Might not be best to wait through 2025.

Of all the posters here I think you have the most predictions and wishes for the death of the Big12. I'll be happy if Texas and Oklahoma find a way to stay together and go forward. If they don't want to stay together I guess we will find out in the future. Who do you think will leave first?

 

[skygusty]

Another source that doesn't share your passion for fomenting dissension between OU and Texas. Why do you want to destroy the Big12? Why can't you embrace the change in the atmosphere between Texas and OU? http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_07b8ed5e-a0d3-5198-84e5-4bf05e3ff087.html

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

Big hope for the Big 12: EVERY conference's TV deal is bigger and better than the previous conference's TV deals. That's how it works. Big 10 got more than SEC & Big 12. So Big 12 will get more than Big 10 on its next deal. Because the one who has the oldest deal gets moved farther back in the pack by the extraordinary escalation of TV deals. Big 12 gets its turn, then Big 10 and ACC can panic.

 

[Buckaineer]

Of all the posters here I think you have the most predictions and wishes for the death of the Big12. I'll be happy if Texas and Oklahoma find a way to stay together and go forward. If they don't want to stay together I guess we will find out in the future. Who do you think will leave first?

No wishes for- but when Trxas is telling reporters theyll give up the LHn when they move to another conference And OUs president is saying UT and Ou will still play every year even if in different conferences- after stating comprehensive improvements were needed to keep them content and it didnt happen? The writing is on the wall.

OU abd UT will likely be offered simultaneously. Theyll both move after the gor is up

 

[skygusty]

Voting for expansion would not have provided Texas any incentive to stay. Maybe Boren, being a crafty bugger, knew that his demands were never going to be agreed to. Now he has more cover to pull OU out. If they both see their self-interest elsewhere there is nothing the rest of the conference can do to keep either of them. I plan to hope for the best and enjoy the ride for the next few years and see if they have a commitment to the Big12 or not. If they stay, the Big12 is fine. If they leave, WVU will have a whole new set of problems and opportunities. You can spend your life worrying if you want. Not me.

 

[Shipyard Dog]

so for all those saying there was no money left and that's why the Big 12 didn't expand...somebody found the cash. Rutgers and Maryland come out smelling just fine.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...eal-ahead-push-revenue-totals-past-sec-big-12

ROOTMASTER... 5 SECONDS AFTER READING THE HEADLINE

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

How do you know where OU is willing to go?

The Pac as a conference makes more than the BIG 12. They pay out less right now per member, because they created their own network without assistance from ESPN or FOX or someone, and they have to pay for it now by themselves. But they have been holding back payouts to members for years now--only distributing in the 60% -70% percent of revenues. Maybe they are holding some of that back to use to lure schools down the road? We'll see.

Once again making false claims about "cable cutting"? Guess you missed where the cable companies ESPN and FOX are signing deals with the Big Ten worth over $2 billion for the next 6 years?

The Big Ten would take OU in a heartbeat and everyone knows it except for apparently you. They've said before they would add Notre Dame and ND is NOT an AAU school. OU is one of the premiere sports institutions out there and they would compliment the poaching of Nebraska nicely (which also is no longer AAU) by adding their former rival. OU wants to be in a competitive and revenue stable conference and for that the Big Ten meets all their needs.

The timing of media deals for each conference coincides with exactly when the BIG 12 will have to renegotiate. The Big Ten very well may be positioning itself to help its partner conference out west which needs the BIG 12 schools to be successful long term-and has an aggressive commissioner as well not afraid to make moves of that sort. You'd have to be very naive to think they both will not try to lure a disgruntled OU away from the BIG 12 when that time comes. The Big Ten certainly has the revenue to do it.

The SEC is also a possibility although their revenues aren't going to be as high as the Big Ten's and not much different than BIG 12 revenues. If OSU also needs a home then maybe they'd go for both.

Its doubtful OU is interested in the ACC no matter what--doesn't make any sense on multiple fronts and even with a network which the ACC will probably add soon (without ND which is tied up with NBC and the BTN long term) it won't be more revenue than OU can make in the BIG 12 so it wouldn't matter.

For certain OU is going to be looking when the Big and Pac are getting new deals. They aren't going to be content making less than Purdue and Iowa and Northwestern for long.

Buko, Yet again, you read a post and either can't comprehend what is being said, or twist it to your own needs.

1. Right now the PAC pays less per school than any conference. They make more money as a whole because they have 12 teams vs ten, but TV rights is paying less per team.

2. As indicated in a previous post, I full expected the B1G was going to get a huge contract. They are the largest geographically with the most historical programs. TV networks want those conference rights above all others, (even the SEC).

3. If you read my F'in post and Comprehend to read what I posted about cable cutting I said cable cutting is "Cable cutting is occurring at a much faster rate on pacific cost then anywhere else in the country". This has a much larger impact on the PAC than any other P5 Conference. The faster rate of cable cutting on the Pacific has very little impact on the B1G.

Also in 2015 The Pac-12 Networks are in only 12 million households, a figure that is well shy of the 60 million-plus households for both the Big Ten and SEC networks.

The Seattle Times reported Washington State took in $1.4 million in distribution revenue from the Pac-12 Networks for the fiscal year 2015 but had projected $5-6 million. This is another sign of the Pac-12 Network’s problems hurting the conference. And someone is undoubtedly wondering if USC and UCLA were wise to give concessions and take an equal slice of the pie despite being in the biggest media market.

The BIG will not take OU because they are not an AAU school, and you saying it is not going to make it true any more than me saying it makes it false. To date the B1G has always made a huge deal about AAU programs and there are other P5 schools with AAU status that bring a larger marker than OU.

Keep convincing trying to convince yourself that the ACC will create a successful network, at least not in this current TV cycle. It is not going to happen. ESPN is not going to spend the amount of money to get a network started, for content it already owns. The only way AAC gets a network is if ND joins as a full member.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Another source that doesn't share your passion for fomenting dissension between OU and Texas. Why do you want to destroy the Big12? Why can't you embrace the change in the atmosphere between Texas and OU? http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_07b8ed5e-a0d3-5198-84e5-4bf05e3ff087.html

Please don't confuse Buck. Any thing in the document that does not match his death to the BIG12 if fiction, while anything that supports it is fact.

 

[topdecktiger]

ESPN is not going to spend the amount of money to get a network started, for content it already owns.

You are hurting your argument when you keep mentioning this one point. ESPN already owning content is not an issue when it comes to starting a network. They already owned the SEC content, and still started a network. It's not the same thing as a regular broadcast contract. With a conference network, they are making money off of the subscription fees, not the actual broadcasts themselves. It's a completely different scenario that simply buying the rights to games, and just broadcasting those games on their regular platforms. The conferences networks are monetized in a different way.

 

[Rootmaster]

Shipyard...txs for the post. Now we all know what you look like! lol

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

You are hurting your argument when you keep mentioning this one point. ESPN already owning content is not an issue when it comes to starting a network. They already owned the SEC content, and still started a network. It's not the same thing as a regular broadcast contract. With a conference network, they are making money off of the subscription fees, not the actual broadcasts themselves. It's a completely different scenario that simply buying the rights to games, and just broadcasting those games on their regular platforms. The conferences networks are monetized in a different way.

TD, Thanks for your response. I do understand the concept, however I also understand the cost of starting a new ACCN and Disney is not going to let ESPN spend the money it takes to launch it unless ACC is willing to take on at least 1/2 the cost (which they won't) or ND joins the conference in all sports

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Here is one article where Boren is sounding smarter than Buck. http://www.oudaily.com/sports/oklah...cle_db80c264-37d5-11e6-abb2-ef6ef57b98c6.html

How difficult would that be?

 

[topdecktiger]

TD, Thanks for your response. I do understand the concept, however I also understand the cost of starting a new ACCN and Disney is not going to let ESPN spend the money it takes to launch it unless ACC is willing to take on at least 1/2 the cost (which they won't) or ND joins the conference in all sports

The cost of starting up a network is not an issue, for two reasons. 1) ESPN would not have much overhead with an ACC network, because the infrastructure is already in place. ESPN would simply run the network out of the ESPN Events studios in Charlotte, where they produce ESPNU. That's what they did with the SECN, which is why start up costs for the SECN were at a minimum. They don't have to spend money on new studios, cameras, etc. because all that equipment is already in place. 2) The conferences do take up some of the operation costs. For example, that's why the Big Ten only got a couple million dollars (per team) when the BTN started up, whereas now they get about $8 million per team. They didn't get the full payout until Fox started making money to cover expenses. (The SEC didn't have this problem, as they were profitable from Day 1, hence the $5 million per team they got the first year.) Getting a network is going to come down to one thing, and one thing only. Can they get enough subscribers?

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

The cost of starting up a network is not an issue, for two reasons. 1) ESPN would not have much overhead with an ACC network, because the infrastructure is already in place. ESPN would simply run the network out of the ESPN Events studios in Charlotte, where they produce ESPNU. That's what they did with the SECN, which is why start up costs for the SECN were at a minimum. They don't have to spend money on new studios, cameras, etc. because all that equipment is already in place. 2) The conferences do take up some of the operation costs. For example, that's why the Big Ten only got a couple million dollars (per team) when the BTN started up, whereas now they get about $8 million per team. They didn't get the full payout until Fox started making money to cover expenses. (The SEC didn't have this problem, as they were profitable from Day 1, hence the $5 million per team they got the first year.) Getting a network is going to come down to one thing, and one thing only. Can they get enough subscribers?

I think you are mistaken and believe there is 100+ million in startup cost. Time will only tell who is correct.

So I gather you think ACCN is a shoe in to get off the ground. How about giving your thought when this will occur.

I say unless ND joins, ACC agrees to pay for ½ the startup cost it won’t until closer to contract re negotiation or some type of major realignment.

 

[topdecktiger]

I think you are mistaken and believe there is 100+ million in startup cost. Time will only tell who is correct.

So I gather you think ACCN is a shoe in to get off the ground. How about giving your thought when this will occur.

I say unless ND joins, ACC agrees to pay for ½ the startup cost it won’t until closer to contract re negotiation or some type of major realignment.

You're incorrect about the $100 million start up cost. You don't have any documented source for that figure. You're just going off what some friend who "knows people" at NC State told you. That's just as bad as all this stuff that certain other posters keep saying. Point out to me where exactly this humongous cost is coming from. ESPN already has the studios in place. They don't have to pay extra for that. ESPN already has the equipment in place. They don't have to pay extra for that. Most of the ACC games, ESPN already televises in the first place. They would be spending money to produce those games either way. It would literally be no different that ESPN switching a game from ABC to ESPN2.

Your next comment is one of the whole problems with this expansion discussion. You have this binary, either/or thinking. You assume that just because I disagree with you on one point, I hold a certain overall view. No, I don't think the ACC network is a shoe in by any means. There is a legitimate concern as to whether the ACC would bring in enough subscription fees to make it worthwhile for ESPN. For example, ESPN gets $50 million a year from Raycom. ESPN would have to give up that contract to for a network. So right there, a network would have to bring in at least $50 million a year to make it worthwhile for ESPN . Will it make that much? That's the question.

One thing I think works in the ACC's favor is that ESPN has to pay the ACC $45 million a year extra if there isn't a network. That's $45 million extra for nothing in return. With a network, ESPN would be getting something in return (revenue from the network), if the network turned a profit.

The bottom line, you are right that it's debatable whether or not the ACC would get a network. You are wrong on your reasoning why.

 

[coalcountry52]

The point made by some about markets in Big 10...NY, Bal/Was, Chicago is spot on...a huge factor in media negotiations. Why some on this forum continue to say markets don't matter is akin to saying the Titanic can't sink. Standing pat on expansion for the Big 12-2=10 is a recipe for implosion at some future date. Broadcast, cable, streaming etc...in the end the advertisers are paying networks for eyeballs not for the outfits the cheer leaders wear. Beyond belief that university presidents could be so short sighted when markets like Orlando, Tampa, Houston, Denver, Memphis, Cincinnati and New England are available. Like it or not WVU needs to be included in a conference that delivers markets (because we don't have one) and Lubbock, Stillwater, and Waco won't cut it in the future. Come on Big 12-2=10...get real.

Markets do not matter if no one is watching. If you can tell me with a straight face that Rutgers and Maryland are pulling in numbers with multiple professional teams in their backyards, then I'll know you're either high or incredibly naive. What the TV providers are doing is gambling on people buying sports packages, which with ala carte programming becoming more likely, means that they wont get John Q who was forced to buy BTN to watch NFL Network. So do the math. They have to hope a WHOLE LOT of people individually subscribe to a network to watch their team a couple times, or that they sell the absolute shit out of advertising.

You all act like collegiate athletics are somehow immune to cycles and oversaturation like every other sport that has been televised. People are being priced out of going to games in person and with TV packages continuing to be way overpriced, there will come a time when the casual fan says "meh," and that's who these TV deals are banking on getting to watch. So, best of luck with you guys wanting schools like Directional Florida, Metro U, or some other school that isn't even the biggest name in its own town. It's the Big Freaking East all over again with fans.

 

[Buckaineer]

Buko, Yet again, you read a post and either can't comprehend what is being said, or twist it to your own needs.

1. Right now the PAC pays less per school than any conference. They make more money as a whole because they have 12 teams vs ten, but TV rights is paying less per team.

2. As indicated in a previous post, I full expected the B1G was going to get a huge contract. They are the largest geographically with the most historical programs. TV networks want those conference rights above all others, (even the SEC).

3. If you read my F'in post and Comprehend to read what I posted about cable cutting I said cable cutting is "Cable cutting is occurring at a much faster rate on pacific cost then anywhere else in the country". This has a much larger impact on the PAC than any other P5 Conference. The faster rate of cable cutting on the Pacific has very little impact on the B1G.

Also in 2015 The Pac-12 Networks are in only 12 million households, a figure that is well shy of the 60 million-plus households for both the Big Ten and SEC networks.

The Seattle Times reported Washington State took in $1.4 million in distribution revenue from the Pac-12 Networks for the fiscal year 2015 but had projected $5-6 million. This is another sign of the Pac-12 Network’s problems hurting the conference. And someone is undoubtedly wondering if USC and UCLA were wise to give concessions and take an equal slice of the pie despite being in the biggest media market.

The BIG will not take OU because they are not an AAU school, and you saying it is not going to make it true any more than me saying it makes it false. To date the B1G has always made a huge deal about AAU programs and there are other P5 schools with AAU status that bring a larger marker than OU.

Keep convincing trying to convince yourself that the ACC will create a successful network, at least not in this current TV cycle. It is not going to happen. ESPN is not going to spend the amount of money to get a network started, for content it already owns. The only way AAC gets a network is if ND joins as a full member.

The levels of stupidity you stoop to with your ignorant attempts to personally attack me with virtually every post are just sad, sad, sad. And also pointless.

No one is under the misconception the PAC is paying out more than the BIG 12. Who said it was?
For someone spouting off about comprehension--you haven't ever comprehended ANYTHING so you certainly can't be bashing me or anyone else with your moronic ramblings.

The Pac 12 will obviously GET MORE MONEY when they expand with programs from the BIG 12--and undoubtedly their hope is their network will take off with added markets in BIG 12 land.

They as a conference make more than the BIG 12--and were it not for owning their own network they would pay out more.

You seem confused about tv money--on the one hand you now claim you expected the Big Ten to get a huge contract, but on the other hand claim the BIG 12 can't do this or that because cable is dying and ESPN and FOX don't have any more money to spend on conferences. Can't count the number of times you've proclaimed the BIG 12 is fine because the money for conferences is done and so there isn't going to be a discrepency between the BIG 12 and Big Ten and SEC or anyone else that is significant.. Yet with the Big Ten getting over $2 billion over 6 years now you are going to act like you always knew this? LOL!!!

What is different about the Pac networks than the Big Ten or SEC? TV networks pay for the btn and secn. the pac pays for and owns its own. That is the primary reason they are behind in distribution.

That they are behind in distribution is why they will again try to poach the BIG 12--they essentially have no other options in expansion and to be a successful financial conference.

And their Big Ten cousin is likely to help them by luring out teams from the BIG 12 so that others will seek out the currently lower paying PAC.

read their social media and its clear OUs fanbase doesn't want them in the BIG 12.

Their president just referenced still playing UT even if they were in difference conferences. Texas said they would still play

The Big Ten would take OU. Its preposterous to pretend they wouldn't when they actively sought non AAU Notre Dame and added a Nebraska team exiting that organization.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

The cost of starting up a network is not an issue, for two reasons. 1) ESPN would not have much overhead with an ACC network, because the infrastructure is already in place. ESPN would simply run the network out of the ESPN Events studios in Charlotte, where they produce ESPNU. That's what they did with the SECN, which is why start up costs for the SECN were at a minimum. They don't have to spend money on new studios, cameras, etc. because all that equipment is already in place. 2) The conferences do take up some of the operation costs. For example, that's why the Big Ten only got a couple million dollars (per team) when the BTN started up, whereas now they get about $8 million per team. They didn't get the full payout until Fox started making money to cover expenses. (The SEC didn't have this problem, as they were profitable from Day 1, hence the $5 million per team they got the first year.) Getting a network is going to come down to one thing, and one thing only. Can they get enough subscribers?

Exactly! Why is this so hard for some idiots on here to understand? LowFatMilk and his band of morons try to push the "bad market condition" narative and can't get it through their retard heads that no one cares about Big12 content so the network wouldn't get close to subscribership needed. Can't wait to read how these retards like LowFatMilk explain away this deal as an example of why bad market conditions keep the Big12 Network in the garage LOL.