Expansion

[Buckaineer]

Comprehensive action is necessary because the things are related.

It doesn't make sense to create a championship game with 10 teams. That leaves you at a disadvantage with guaranteed rematches, plus you are negotiating for a rate for a conference with 10 teams. If you decide to expand later you then have a 10 team rate for more teams.

In order to have the championship game work to benefit the conference, you need at least 12 teams which means expansion, but in order to make expansion worthwhile for everyone beyond just better access to playoffs, you need to also start a conference network so there is more financial benefit to expansion (and finances are primarily why conferences expand in the first place).

But, in order to have a conference network, you need to have the LHN rolled into it.

They've got to work on all of these things at the same time.

Lots of research has already been done, they've worked on these things with advisors for well over a year. It's a matter of everyone deciding on the path forward and a course of action to implement these things. Edit: Apparently not much of the information has been distributed throughout the membership and much research into these things is ongoing based on Bowlsby's comments from the winter 2016 meetings.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yes, but the three actions that Boren is so high on are not absolutely connected. The membership can easily say, "OK, let's do this and this, and really look into this." We shall soon see!

Boren doesn't want to do the things one at a time. He said they need to be done altogether to be effective. He said he doesn't want to do it piecemeal.

 

[Buckaineer]

Interesting tidbit in this Dallas Morning News article--the conference isn't just considering adding two more schools:

excerpt:
The numbers included all kinds of head-spinning possibilities: eight conference games, nine conference games, title game, no title game, current membership, two more members, and four more members. Variations involved provisions for traditional rivals. ADs suggested even more. Bowlsby wouldn't reveal which scenario so far is the best roadmap to the CFP.
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/02/04/carlton-big-12-taking-deep-dive-analytics-deciding-title-game-conference-tv-network

 

[Buckaineer]

Another tidbit which indicates that there were discussions on divisions in a future BIG 12:
excerpt:
Chicago-based Navigate Research gave ADs a presentation that ran the gamut of possibilities for the Big 12 as a 10-team league, a 12-team league, a 14-team league and even a 16-team league. The firm’s variations — some 40,000 of them, Bowlsby said — included a championship game, no championship game, an eight-game schedule, a nine-game schedule, and came up with percentages for making the College Football Playoff and even going undefeated.

“They were able to show us comparisons on all of those,” Bowlsby said. “I don’t think you can make important decisions without that sort of data.”

Maybe it’s a case of overthinking things. Data analysts can’t predict when a quarterback will sustain a concussion or when a free safety blows a coverage or when a fumble bounces out of bounds or stays inbounds. Those are usually the differences between a team going undefeated or not.

But the data shouldn’t be ignored, either.

Bowlsby said league ADs immediately asked presenters to configure everything again, with allowances for rivalries, two rivalries, and even three rivalries.

“Probably ended up with maybe a half-dozen more that we wanted to have modeled,” Bowlsby said. “They’re gonna get back to us with some additional data. … We’re doing a deep dive on all this stuff and are intent on making very intelligent, very meaningful and reliable decisions.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/spo...cle_beb557d7-1d2e-5028-87ae-b2c105fc7a0a.html

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Good info, I appreciate your research and news gathering.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Comprehensive action is necessary because the things are related.

It doesn't make sense to create a championship game with 10 teams. That leaves you at a disadvantage with guaranteed rematches, plus you are negotiating for a rate for a conference with 10 teams. If you decide to expand later you then have a 10 team rate for more teams.

In order to have the championship game work to benefit the conference, you need at least 12 teams which means expansion, but in order to make expansion worthwhile for everyone beyond just better access to playoffs, you need to also start a conference network so there is more financial benefit to expansion (and finances are primarily why conferences expand in the first place).

But, in order to have a conference network, you need to have the LHN rolled into it.

They've got to work on all of these things at the same time.

Lots of research has already been done, they've worked on these things with advisors for well over a year. It's a matter of everyone deciding on the path forward and a course of action to implement these things. Edit: Apparently not much of the information has been distributed throughout the membership and much research into these things is ongoing based on Bowlsby's comments from the winter 2016 meetings.

You might be right about being at a disadvantage, but at this point it is just your opinion.

If conference starts with 10 team CCG, what makes you think there won't be a pro rata increase in said game if they expand by 2, like the current TV contracts has.

Just my opinion, but as I have said many times, expansion without a network is pointless. A network without Texas is useless. The problem is Texas doesn't really care if the LHN leads to the implosion of the conference. They know they will always have a seat in a power conference, and have no financial incentive to give up LHN.

If you can't get Texas to give up LHN there is no network and probably no expansion.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Interesting tidbit in this Dallas Morning News article--the conference isn't just considering adding two more schools:

excerpt:
The numbers included all kinds of head-spinning possibilities: eight conference games, nine conference games, title game, no title game, current membership, two more members, and four more members. Variations involved provisions for traditional rivals. ADs suggested even more. Bowlsby wouldn't reveal which scenario so far is the best roadmap to the CFP.
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/02/04/carlton-big-12-taking-deep-dive-analytics-deciding-title-game-conference-tv-network

I read this article this morning. I thought it presented the best details to date.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 802258
Maybe it’s a case of overthinking things. Data analysts can’t predict when a quarterback will sustain a concussion or when a free safety blows a coverage or when a fumble bounces out of bounds or stays inbounds. Those are usually the differences between a team going undefeated or not.

But the data shouldn’t be ignored, either.
.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/spo...cle_beb557d7-1d2e-5028-87ae-b2c105fc7a0a.html[/QUOTE]

I don't understand the comment form above. Data is data and if done correctly it is fact based. How can that be compared to an total unknown that your QB sustain a Concussion.

Hopefully the data will be factual, and will show a benefit to the conferece that expansion will bring in more money. If not we can close the doors on adding teams like UC and UCONN.

 

[Buckaineer]

You might be right about being at a disadvantage, but at this point it is just your opinion.

If conference starts with 10 team CCG, what makes you think there won't be a pro rata increase in said game if they expand by 2, like the current TV contracts has.

Just my opinion, but as I have said many times, expansion without a network is pointless. A network without Texas is useless. The problem is Texas doesn't really care if the LHN leads to the implosion of the conference. They know they will always have a seat in a power conference, and have no financial incentive to give up LHN.

If you can't get Texas to give up LHN there is no network and probably no expansion.

Oklahoma's president believes there is a disadvantage. Bowlsby himself has stated as much and is now calling it a "wide delta".

The conference is looking at all these details because its necessary to determine the best course of action going forward for the future success of the league.

To make the claim that Texas doesn't care about this or that is simply baseless. Texas has expressed that they like the BIG 12. The options haven't all been presented yet, and neither they nor anyone else has made any decisions. When the time comes for decision making, Texas is most likely to support the membership and the conference.

Boren stated all of these things need to occur at the same time, and Bowlsby stated the same yesterday--that is what they are looking at doing.

 

[Buckaineer]

[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 802258
Maybe it’s a case of overthinking things. Data analysts can’t predict when a quarterback will sustain a concussion or when a free safety blows a coverage or when a fumble bounces out of bounds or stays inbounds. Those are usually the differences between a team going undefeated or not.

But the data shouldn’t be ignored, either.
.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/spo...cle_beb557d7-1d2e-5028-87ae-b2c105fc7a0a.html

I don't understand the comment form above. Data is data and if done correctly it is fact based. How can that be compared to an total unknown that your QB sustain a Concussion.

Hopefully the data will be factual, and will show a benefit to the conferece that expansion will bring in more money. If not we can close the doors on adding teams like UC and UCONN.[/QUOTE]

You can show "if you have Y# of teams and a CCG, x# of teams have the probability of finishing with this record and that gives you a higher percentage of making the playoffs than with z# of teams. You can't factor in a QB getting hurt though.

That comment however wasn't from the conference, it was from the writer. The conference is confident they are covering all bases with the detailed analysis, based on what they've told us.

As Bowlsby stated, its all a matter of negotiation regarding expansion. The conference has to present their side and the networks their side and you negotiate from there. As mentioned in earlier conversations it isn't set in stone.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Oklahoma's president believes there is a disadvantage. Bowlsby himself has stated as much and is now calling it a "wide delta".

The conference is looking at all these details because its necessary to determine the best course of action going forward for the future success of the league.

To make the claim that Texas doesn't care about this or that is simply baseless. Texas has expressed that they like the BIG 12. The options haven't all been presented yet, and neither they nor anyone else has made any decisions. When the time comes for decision making, Texas is most likely to support the membership and the conference.

Boren stated all of these things need to occur at the same time, and Bowlsby stated the same yesterday--that is what they are looking at doing.

What incentive does Texas have giving up the difference they make from LHN (15 Million) to what the B12 Network might bring in (1 to 5 million). Yea, Yea, I get it, the BIG12 stays together. But do
they really, I mean really care.

You can't judge this by what they say, but how they respond. If history holds true (Texas cares only about Texas), then they will give the big FU to fold LHN into B12 network.

 

[Buckaineer]

What incentive does Texas have giving up the difference they make from LHN (15 Million) to what the B12 Network might bring in (1 to 5 million). Yea, Yea, I get it, the BIG12 stays together. But do
they really, I mean really care.

You can't judge this by what they say, but how they respond. If history holds true (Texas cares only about Texas), then they will give the big FU to fold LHN into B12 network.

Boren stated that the schools in the BIG 12 are losing $4 to $6 million each every year by not having a network. His idea is to have Texas receive a larger distribution than others for a time to make up what would be lost from their own network.

The consultants are running the different scenarios now, so undoubdtedly everyone including Texas is listening. No one has made firm decisions so far. Until they do there's no point in assuming what Texas will or won't do. If they don't lose anything there's no reason for them to not want the other members to also do well--that benefits them too in the long run.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

I know exactly what is, and what is not, going to happen, and when, and when it is not, going to happen regarding B12 expansion. But I have been sworn to secrecy. I will, however, confirm to you afterwards that what happened is exactly what I had previously understood was going to happen.

So ... rest easy.

 

[topdecktiger]

Boren stated that the schools in the BIG 12 are losing $4 to $6 million each every year by not having a network. His idea is to have Texas receive a larger distribution than others for a time to make up what would be lost from their own network.

The consultants are running the different scenarios now, so undoubdtedly everyone including Texas is listening. No one has made firm decisions so far. Until they do there's no point in assuming what Texas will or won't do. If they don't lose anything there's no reason for them to not want the other members to also do well--that benefits them too in the long run.

I'll point out again, all this talk has been coming form people like Boren. It's Texas that you need to hear from. It's easy for Boren to say Texas should give up the LHN. It's not affecting him. It's Texas that's affected. There are a couple of things I think you aren't considering here. One is that Texas, particularly the coaches, like the prestige from the LHN. They use it as a recruiting too. Not just football either, but all sports. The other is money. Texas gets $15 million from the LHN. Boren is suggesting Texas get a bigger share of the B12N money to make up the difference. Well, the payout per team is not going to be close to $15 million. The SECN pays out $5 million per school. (Hard to see the Big 12 bringing in more than the SEC.) You are probably looking at Texas being about $10 million short. That's a good bit of money to have to make up, which is going to come out of the pockets of the other schools. It's definitely not a sure thing that the Big 12 will be able to get Texas the same amount they are getting from the LHN.

 

[Buckaineer]

I'll point out again, all this talk has been coming form people like Boren. It's Texas that you need to hear from. It's easy for Boren to say Texas should give up the LHN. It's not affecting him. It's Texas that's affected. There are a couple of things I think you aren't considering here. One is that Texas, particularly the coaches, like the prestige from the LHN. They use it as a recruiting too. Not just football either, but all sports. The other is money. Texas gets $15 million from the LHN. Boren is suggesting Texas get a bigger share of the B12N money to make up the difference. Well, the payout per team is not going to be close to $15 million. The SECN pays out $5 million per school. (Hard to see the Big 12 bringing in more than the SEC.) You are probably looking at Texas being about $10 million short. That's a good bit of money to have to make up, which is going to come out of the pockets of the other schools. It's definitely not a sure thing that the Big 12 will be able to get Texas the same amount they are getting from the LHN.

If there is a BIG 12 network, Texas and its coaches will not only get exposure from those who can get the LHN, but from a national audience. Hmmmm. Wonder which audience would be better for their recruiting and for all sports?

As for numbers, let's look at them again.

The Big Ten and SEC networks have distributions in the mid 60% range of all pay subscribers.

The BIG 12 has a smaller base footprint so probably won't get that many, but for purposes of this let's say they get distribution to 55% of pay subscribers.

If they add UConn and CIncinnati, along with the existing cable base that's approx 10.33 million subscribers.
If the BIG 12 network acquired a reasonable $1.00 per subscriber rate in its home territories, that is:
$10.33 million per month (reports have stated the LHN already has from 8-12 million subscribers and the BIG 12 would be adding many more with all the states and some regions i.e.NYC, Pittsburgh, Maryland for example, involved).
Take 55 million (total) subscribers and subtract out 10.33 (footprint)=44.67 million subscribers in non BIG 12 territories that receive the network.
x$.20 per subscriber = $8.934 million per month from non-territory subscribers to the BIG 12 Network
$8.934 million plus $10.33 million =$19.264 million per month, x 12 months =$231.168 million per year total revenue for a BIG 12 conference network.

Network partners would likely take half of that-so divide that $231.168 million by 2=$115.584 million left to divide up among 12 members and the conference (13 shares).
That is approximately $8.89 million PER SCHOOL PER YEAR plus a conference share of the same.

Now, Texas is guaranteed $15 million per year. 15-8.89=$6.11 million that would need to be made up for a time to Texas.
Divide that $6.11 million up among the other 11 members and the conference take and you get: $509,000 per member that would need to go back to Texas or be distributed to them first.

You can imagine that the two new members might have to take a lower share than existing members to buy in, but even if it was all evenly split that means instead of i.e. Kansas State making $8.89 milliion per year from a conference network, they might make $8.381 million. That's going to be around $4 million more than they get now, and they'll still retain their radio/internet etc. rights which they can also sell.

The SEC has to feed 14 members plus the conference office, and there would be expenses taken out of what all BIG 12 schools get so the final number in revenue is going to be very similar to what SEC schools get, but probably a bit higher depending on how many schools the BIG 12 adds.

 

[Buckaineer]

Interesting Blog from the folks at UConn that goes into detail about the firms doing the research for the BIG 12:

Big 12 Has Hired Two Firms to Develop Conference TV Network, Vet Expansion Candidates

 

[topdecktiger]

If there is a BIG 12 network, Texas and its coaches will not only get exposure from those who can get the LHN, but from a national audience. Hmmmm. Wonder which audience would be better for their recruiting and for all sports?

As for numbers, let's look at them again.

The Big Ten and SEC networks have distributions in the mid 60% range of all pay subscribers.

The BIG 12 has a smaller base footprint so probably won't get that many, but for purposes of this let's say they get distribution to 55% of pay subscribers.

If they add UConn and CIncinnati, along with the existing cable base that's approx 10.33 million subscribers.
If the BIG 12 network acquired a reasonable $1.00 per subscriber rate in its home territories, that is:
$10.33 million per month (reports have stated the LHN already has from 8-12 million subscribers and the BIG 12 would be adding many more with all the states and some regions i.e.NYC, Pittsburgh, Maryland for example, involved).
Take 55 million (total) subscribers and subtract out 10.33 (footprint)=44.67 million subscribers in non BIG 12 territories that receive the network.
x$.20 per subscriber = $8.934 million per month from non-territory subscribers to the BIG 12 Network
$8.934 million plus $10.33 million =$19.264 million per month, x 12 months =$231.168 million per year total revenue for a BIG 12 conference network.

Network partners would likely take half of that-so divide that $231.168 million by 2=$115.584 million left to divide up among 12 members and the conference (13 shares).
That is approximately $8.89 million PER SCHOOL PER YEAR plus a conference share of the same.

Now, Texas is guaranteed $15 million per year. 15-8.89=$6.11 million that would need to be made up for a time to Texas.
Divide that $6.11 million up among the other 11 members and the conference take and you get: $509,000 per member that would need to go back to Texas or be distributed to them first.

You can imagine that the two new members might have to take a lower share than existing members to buy in, but even if it was all evenly split that means instead of i.e. Kansas State making $8.89 milliion per year from a conference network, they might make $8.381 million. That's going to be around $4 million more than they get now, and they'll still retain their radio/internet etc. rights which they can also sell.

The SEC has to feed 14 members plus the conference office, and there would be expenses taken out of what all BIG 12 schools get so the final number in revenue is going to be very similar to what SEC schools get, but probably a bit higher depending on how many schools the BIG 12 adds.

You can't assume that a Big 12 network would be broadcasted nationally any more than you can the LHN. The other conference networks don't have nationwide distribution, so it's a little presumptions to say the Big 12 would. The other thing is, the other sports still wouldn't get the kind of exposure as they do on the LHN. They would still only get a handful of games on the conference network, much less than they get on the LHN. They use the LHN as a recruiting tool, even going up against teams that already have a conference network.

The figures don't work the way you are making them out. Bowlsby himself said $4-6 million. Your $8+ figure is outside the range of what he's saying.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

K-State president Shulz says Big 12 plans to keep "family arguments we're going to do at home with the door shut."

Following Friday's Big 12 presidents meeting, Kansas State president Kirk Schulz said "there's a unanimity" among the 10 schools that wasn't always there before in putting the interests of the conference over the interests of the individual schools. Schulz added the Big 12 will look to come to a 10-0 consensus moving forward on any major decisions, including possible expansion or implementation of a conference championship game.

In other words STFU Boron

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Boren stated that the schools in the BIG 12 are losing $4 to $6 million each every year by not having a network. His idea is to have Texas receive a larger distribution than others for a time to make up what would be lost from their own network.

The consultants are running the different scenarios now, so undoubdtedly everyone including Texas is listening. No one has made firm decisions so far. Until they do there's no point in assuming what Texas will or won't do. If they don't lose anything there's no reason for them to not want the other members to also do well--that benefits them too in the long run.

Boren does not know how much they are losing by not having network and is why they are having out side consulting companies help them through the process. That is same thing as saying I read it on the internet therefore it must be true

The BIG12 almost imploded before because of uneven revenue sharing. Going down that same path is a very bad idea.

 

[Buckaineer]

You can't assume that a Big 12 network would be broadcasted nationally any more than you can the LHN. The other conference networks don't have nationwide distribution, so it's a little presumptions to say the Big 12 would. The other thing is, the other sports still wouldn't get the kind of exposure as they do on the LHN. They would still only get a handful of games on the conference network, much less than they get on the LHN. They use the LHN as a recruiting tool, even going up against teams that already have a conference network.

The figures don't work the way you are making them out. Bowlsby himself said $4-6 million. Your $8+ figure is outside the range of what he's saying.

Don't know if you've ever traveled much, but if you had, you'd realize these networks are on all over the place. I don't live near the Pac 12, yet its available on my cable system. Same with the SEC, yet, there it is even though there are not many SEC fans anywhere in the vicinity of where I am.

These networks are distributed far and wide. The LHN represents one school, so its not surprising that they haven't garnered as much attention, not to mention there has been an incredible "backlash" against UT and the LHN from schools that left, from conferences that covet them so want the LHN to fail, and so forth.

There is enough interest in live sports coming from a major conference such as the BIG 12 which has one of the top football conferences and the #1 basketball conference many years, that a BIG 12 network could achieve distribution around the country to at least 55% of the country. WVU has loads of fans in Ohio, PA, Maryland, the Carolinas, Florida and Georgia. You add in a Cincinnati and a UConn or even others and millions more fans are added that will pay for a network--and have fans scattered around the country. As Boren stated, right now each school is leaving $4 to $6 million on the table--and that's not possible if there wasn't going to be distribution around the country.

As to that statement--yes, the figures do add up. You are forgetting that BIG 12 schools currently have tier III tv deals in place that pay the schools anywhere from 2 to $15 million per year. You also forget that not all the money is going to be profit, there will be expenses.

 

[Buckaineer]

Boren does not know how much they are losing by not having network and is why they are having out side consulting companies help them through the process. That is same thing as saying I read it on the internet therefore it must be true

The BIG12 almost imploded before because of uneven revenue sharing. Going down that same path is a very bad idea.

You seem to want the BIG 12 to be having troubles. Unequal revenue sharing is different that making sure UT is "whole" if you merge their LHN into a conference network.

Boren obviously has been doing research and has also had consultants advising him. He stated as much. Now the entire conference has two groups looking at things in even more detail.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

The Big 12's problem has been Texas for a long time and it continues to be Texas.

Until Texas relents and wants to play ball as a team with the other schools the Big 12 will be contentious.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

You seem to want the BIG 12 to be having troubles. Unequal revenue sharing is different that making sure UT is "whole" if you merge their LHN into a conference network.

Boren obviously has been doing research and has also had consultants advising him. He stated as much. Now the entire conference has two groups looking at things in even more detail.

No dude, I am stating the facts as we know them. The Big12 almost imploded because of unequal revenue sharing. What makes you think that won't happen again.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Good Read

Kansas State president Kirk Schulz says perception of Big 12 instability drives him ‘bananas’

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/co...lege/big-12/kansas-state/article58718638.html

 

[Panthergrowl13]

History does not support your absolute stance here. Everything that was wrong with the Big East has been inherited by the ACC from their basketball over football mentality to poor attendance at football games to the bastardly half marriage with Notre Dame. You have schools in the ACC willing to jump ship if the right phone rang. Pitt would leave for the Big Ten in a heart beat because they have a PSU obsession. VT would say Virginia Who? if the SEC called. Those are the two least loyal members of the ACC but none of the outside of Duke and Wake Forest are 100% loyal.

Is a certainty that the ACC will collapse? Nope. Is a certainty that it wont? Nope. The past say it is a weakly assembled conference and everyone knows that the Big Ten and the SEC are short two schools each. Where are they going to come from? They have both had their hands in the Big 12 and took what they wanted. If they wanted any other Big 12 schools they would have already taken them. Oklahoma could have gone to the SEC but they would not leave behind OSU and the SEC, replied, "no, thanks." The only place the Big Ten and SEC are going to get #15 and #16 is from the ACC. Do either have to expand? Nope, will they? Probably. When they do, the ACC will dies as it now and become the new AAC/CUSA.

You disagree, I know. But all you say is that it wont happen. You ignore historical trend and probable future events by the Big Ten and SEC. You need something to back your view.

When the Pac 12 feels they also must increase their conference size to 16 schools, where do they go to get the 4 new schools.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Call it the Boren Rule: Why Big 12 schools will defer to Bob Bowlsby, allow league to speak 'with a single voice'. Or as I called it before, STFU Boren

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...r-bob-bowlsby-allow-league-speak-single-voice

 

[Buckaineer]

No dude, I am stating the facts as we know them. The Big12 almost imploded because of unequal revenue sharing. What makes you think that won't happen again.

Allowing Texas to be paid off over time for a deal they have in place is not the same thing as "unequal revenue sharing". Other schools like OU and WVU and Kansas would likely get the same. You are grasping to create negativity that doesn't exist. No one in the conference will be losing anything, they'll be gaining millions of dollars per school. At a certain point in time everyone will receive the same amount.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

Allowing Texas to be paid off over time for a deal they have in place is not the same thing as "unequal revenue sharing". Other schools like OU and WVU and Kansas would likely get the same. You are grasping to create negativity that doesn't exist. No one in the conference will be losing anything, they'll be gaining millions of dollars per school. At a certain point in time everyone will receive the same amount.

As long as that is what happens, and it does not become perpetual. By the way I am not grasping

 

[Buckaineer]

As long as that is what happens, and it does not become perpetual. By the way I am not grasping

We don't know what will happen at this point, but Boren's proposal was for a gradual pay off.

At this point they are still in discussion mode only. We'll see in a few months if they make it to action mode.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Interesting Blog from the folks at UConn that goes into detail about the firms doing the research for the BIG 12:

Big 12 Has Hired Two Firms to Develop Conference TV Network, Vet Expansion Candidates

This is exactly what I understood was going to happen. Things are working out according to the plan.

 

[topdecktiger]

Don't know if you've ever traveled much, but if you had, you'd realize these networks are on all over the place. I don't live near the Pac 12, yet its available on my cable system. Same with the SEC, yet, there it is even though there are not many SEC fans anywhere in the vicinity of where I am.

These networks are distributed far and wide. The LHN represents one school, so its not surprising that they haven't garnered as much attention, not to mention there has been an incredible "backlash" against UT and the LHN from schools that left, from conferences that covet them so want the LHN to fail, and so forth.

There is enough interest in live sports coming from a major conference such as the BIG 12 which has one of the top football conferences and the #1 basketball conference many years, that a BIG 12 network could achieve distribution around the country to at least 55% of the country. WVU has loads of fans in Ohio, PA, Maryland, the Carolinas, Florida and Georgia. You add in a Cincinnati and a UConn or even others and millions more fans are added that will pay for a network--and have fans scattered around the country. As Boren stated, right now each school is leaving $4 to $6 million on the table--and that's not possible if there wasn't going to be distribution around the country.

As to that statement--yes, the figures do add up. You are forgetting that BIG 12 schools currently have tier III tv deals in place that pay the schools anywhere from 2 to $15 million per year. You also forget that not all the money is going to be profit, there will be expenses.

You can get those conference networks in different areas, but the same goes for the LHN. The point I was making is, if you want to get the Pac 12 network in South Carolina, for example, you have to get it through the special sports package. I get the SEC network on my regular cable package. Big difference. The point is, it contradicts your theory that Texas would get more exposure nationally on a Big 12 network, because it's still not going to be on basic distribution nationwide, which is the same situation now for the LHN.

You are wrong about the $4-6 million statement from Boren. The majority of money made by the conference networks comes from the in-footprint rate. I'll give you an example. These are the figures from the BTN. They are a couple of years old, but that's good since it gives us a conservative estimate. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/3/4295242/sec-network-big-ten-network-comparison

The Big Ten has 52 million subscribers, 20 million in-footprint. The Big Ten gets $1.00 per subscriber in footprint, and $.20 per subscriber outside the footprint. Ok, let's do the math. 20 million X $1.00 would be $20 million. 32 million X $.20 = $6.4 million. See? You get 3 times the amount of money from about 1/3 fewer subscribers.

The Big 12 schools can't keep those Tier 3 deals if the conference forms a network. The conference has to buy back all those rights and package them into the Big 12 network. You can't count that money twice.

No, the figures don't add up. I'll go back to the Big Ten as an example. We already established they got $26.4 million from all subscribers. Multiply by 12 months, and you get $316.8 million. Divide half for Fox, and you get $158.4 million for the year. Divide that by 13(remember they only had 12 schools at the time), and you get $12.2 million per team. That year, the Big Ten actually got $7.6 million per team.http://btn.com/2013/05/06/report-big-ten-payouts-to-hit-25-7-million/

My point is, the way you calculated the money previously is incorrect. I applied the same formula to the Big Ten (for which we have actual numbers to compare) and got an error of over 50%. So yeah, the $4-6 million Bowlsby quoted is more accurate than your figure of $8+ million.

 

[Buckaineer]

You can get those conference networks in different areas, but the same goes for the LHN. The point I was making is, if you want to get the Pac 12 network in South Carolina, for example, you have to get it through the special sports package. I get the SEC network on my regular cable package. Big difference. The point is, it contradicts your theory that Texas would get more exposure nationally on a Big 12 network, because it's still not going to be on basic distribution nationwide, which is the same situation now for the LHN.

You are wrong about the $4-6 million statement from Boren. The majority of money made by the conference networks comes from the in-footprint rate. I'll give you an example. These are the figures from the BTN. They are a couple of years old, but that's good since it gives us a conservative estimate. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/3/4295242/sec-network-big-ten-network-comparison

The Big Ten has 52 million subscribers, 20 million in-footprint. The Big Ten gets $1.00 per subscriber in footprint, and $.20 per subscriber outside the footprint. Ok, let's do the math. 20 million X $1.00 would be $20 million. 32 million X $.20 = $6.4 million. See? You get 3 times the amount of money from about 1/3 fewer subscribers.

The Big 12 schools can't keep those Tier 3 deals if the conference forms a network. The conference has to buy back all those rights and package them into the Big 12 network. You can't count that money twice.

No, the figures don't add up. I'll go back to the Big Ten as an example. We already established they got $26.4 million from all subscribers. Multiply by 12 months, and you get $316.8 million. Divide half for Fox, and you get $158.4 million for the year. Divide that by 13(remember they only had 12 schools at the time), and you get $12.2 million per team. That year, the Big Ten actually got $7.6 million per team.http://btn.com/2013/05/06/report-big-ten-payouts-to-hit-25-7-million/

My point is, the way you calculated the money previously is incorrect. I applied the same formula to the Big Ten (for which we have actual numbers to compare) and got an error of over 50%. So yeah, the $4-6 million Bowlsby quoted is more accurate than your figure of $8+ million.

The reason I pointed out that you can get other networks around the country is because it was implied this would not happen for the BIG 12. Of course some of that is through a sports package. The point is, the conference still makes money for that.

I'm wrong about the $4 to $6 million? Oklahoma's president stated this:

excerpt:
Boren said in order to have a conference network, individual school networks, including Texas' Longhorn Network, would need to be folded into the larger one. He said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oklaho...nts-expansion-big-12-tv-205700523--ncaaf.html

Are you claiming he is lying? If so, you need to check your ego, because you've become delusional thinking you know more about potential BIG 12 earnings than the president of the University of Oklahoma. Wow, just wow.

As to tier III deals? What are you talking about? No one said anything about counting tier III deals twice. You need to go back and re read. Try it slowly. The BIG 12 currently has schools selling rights for things like radio, internet, signage, etc. They also have deals for showing games on television (or streaming or whatever they've chosen). For some schools in the BIG 12 these things are combined now so its impossible to tell exactly what portion they are getting for the televised football, basketball and other sports in comparison to their radio and internet deals, etc.

If the conference starts a network, then ONLY the tv portion of BIG 12 tier III deals will switch over to the conference network. Radio, signage rights or whatever will remain with BIG 12 schools to sign or continue with places such as IMG or Leerfield. The same types of deals schools in other conferences have that pay millions.

So for example, Kansas will get $8-$9 million for a BIG 12 network showing some of their sports, coaches shows, etc. on tv. Then Kansas can still sell radio, internet, etc. rights to IMG, Leerfield for another $4-$6 million per year or more--whatever they are able to sell those for just like Alabama, Ohio State, USC, or anyone in other conferences does.

The numbers I showed for the potential BIG 12 network absolutely do add up. Anyone can recalculate them including you.
There will be expenses and other distributions, but the numbers most certainly add up.

 

[topdecktiger]

The reason I pointed out that you can get other networks around the country is because it was implied this would not happen for the BIG 12. Of course some of that is through a sports package. The point is, the conference still makes money for that.

I'm wrong about the $4 to $6 million? Oklahoma's president stated this:

excerpt:
Boren said in order to have a conference network, individual school networks, including Texas' Longhorn Network, would need to be folded into the larger one. He said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oklaho...nts-expansion-big-12-tv-205700523--ncaaf.html

Are you claiming he is lying? If so, you need to check your ego, because you've become delusional thinking you know more about potential BIG 12 earnings than the president of the University of Oklahoma. Wow, just wow.

As to tier III deals? What are you talking about? No one said anything about counting tier III deals twice. You need to go back and re read. Try it slowly. The BIG 12 currently has schools selling rights for things like radio, internet, signage, etc. They also have deals for showing games on television (or streaming or whatever they've chosen). For some schools in the BIG 12 these things are combined now so its impossible to tell exactly what portion they are getting for the televised football, basketball and other sports in comparison to their radio and internet deals, etc.

If the conference starts a network, then ONLY the tv portion of BIG 12 tier III deals will switch over to the conference network. Radio, signage rights or whatever will remain with BIG 12 schools to sign or continue with places such as IMG or Leerfield. The same types of deals schools in other conferences have that pay millions.

So for example, Kansas will get $8-$9 million for a BIG 12 network showing some of their sports, coaches shows, etc. on tv. Then Kansas can still sell radio, internet, etc. rights to IMG, Leerfield for another $4-$6 million per year or more--whatever they are able to sell those for just like Alabama, Ohio State, USC, or anyone in other conferences does.

The numbers I showed for the potential BIG 12 network absolutely do add up. Anyone can recalculate them including you.
There will be expenses and other distributions, but the numbers most certainly add up.

You are all over the place. Here is what Boren says:

He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.

Ok, well what the means is, the $4-6 million they are losing is the amount they would get paid from a conference network. So, no, I'm not saying Boren is lying. What I'm saying is, you don't understand Boren's comment.

You have arbitrarily made up this $8-9 million figure. Boren's comments clearly indicate what the payouts would be for a Big 12 network: $4-6 million a year to each school. That makes sense, because that's inline with that the SEC and Big Ten already get.

What I am saying is wrong is your back-of-the-napkin calculations you used to arrive at the $8-9 million figure.

Also, I didn't imply anything about the Big 12's coverage being lesser somehow. You inferred that because you have you antenna up looking for anything anti-Big 12. You said that Texas would get more national coverage from a Big 12 network than the LHN. I said that wasn't true, because the Big 12 is not automatically nationally broadcasted. As I pointed out, a Big 12 network would have to be purchased as an add-on in some areas, which is no different than the situation with the LHN now.

 

[mountaineers8893]

This is going to be a stupid question, but... what's stopping us from having a B12 network for all games that don't include Texas.. as in, if we expand to bigger markets, cinci, memphis, or uconn, and then let them keep the LHN, that makes 15m, why couldn't the B12 network co-exist? If Texas wants to do theiir own thing, let them. There are a billion channels on cable TV, and they will bundle LHN with B12 network anyway in most cable deals.. .If Texas feels like they could make more by joining the B12 network then they could. Am I missing something big here? Since we need Texas - we could make it to where the B12 network could show road games or something as well as the b12 network... I mean why is it such a necessity for Texas to be included in a b12 network deal, b12 would still get subscriptions in texas from everybody, including longhorn fans.

 

[Buckaineer]

You are all over the place. Here is what Boren says:

He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.

Ok, well what the means is, the $4-6 million they are losing is the amount they would get paid from a conference network. So, no, I'm not saying Boren is lying. What I'm saying is, you don't understand Boren's comment.

You have arbitrarily made up this $8-9 million figure. Boren's comments clearly indicate what the payouts would be for a Big 12 network: $4-6 million a year to each school. That makes sense, because that's inline with that the SEC and Big Ten already get.

What I am saying is wrong is your back-of-the-napkin calculations you used to arrive at the $8-9 million figure.

Also, I didn't imply anything about the Big 12's coverage being lesser somehow. You inferred that because you have you antenna up looking for anything anti-Big 12. You said that Texas would get more national coverage from a Big 12 network than the LHN. I said that wasn't true, because the Big 12 is not automatically nationally broadcasted. As I pointed out, a Big 12 network would have to be purchased as an add-on in some areas, which is no different than the situation with the LHN now.

I'm "all over the place"? What in the world are you babbling about? You really lack basic comprehension skills.

You just repeated exactly what I stated in my earlier post about Boren's comments, and now repeat what I responded just a short while ago as if I'm stating something different? Then you make wild speculation about what Boren meant--and I'm all over the place?

Yes, Boren stated that each BIG 12 school is losing $4-$6 million per year ABOVE WHAT THEY MAKE NOW IN THEIR TIER 3 RIGHTS. $2 million plus $6 million is what? DING DING DING! $8 million. What is $2million? The amount some BIG 12 schools make now in tier III television rights. Other BIG 12 schools are getting around $4 million for tier III television rights now.

As Boren states, if there were a BIG 12 network instead of schools selling individual rights, they could make about $4 million more than they make now in tier III tv rights. What is $4 million plus $4 million? DING DING DING! $8 million. Right in the exact ballpark of my projections of a BIG 12 network getting $1.00 in its footprint with two additions, and reaching 55% penetration of all pay tv subscribers with $.20 per subscriber in non footprint areas--something very possible considering the Big Ten and SEC both are in the mid 60% range.

What you are missing is that the number I'm showing is REVENUE only, not showing expenses. There will be expenses subtracted from whatever revenues schools receive for various costs. However, the BIG 12 also (at 12) would have two less mouths to feed than the Big Ten or SEC.

Texas would immediately get more coverage from a BIG 12 network because it would immediately be on in a much larger territory than the LHN is covered, and it would get national distribution on various pay subscription services-even if at a lower rate than what footprint regions would deliver. Hate to break it to you, but the SECN and BTN also have to be purchased as add-ons in some areas as well and/or receive lower rates in most areas of the country where they are seen. No difference there. A BIG 12 network would get the same sort of distribution as an SECn or BTN, but would likely reach fewer homes, but otherwise it would be distributed in the same manner.

Analysts are examining and calculating now, and in May/June they will release numbers to the conference.

You should probably wait to try and declare the BIG 12 can't do this or that until after that information is disseminated. I've done a reasonable estimate above which shows accurately the sort of revenues the BIG 12 could achieve with a certain penetration.

 

[Buckaineer]

This is going to be a stupid question, but... what's stopping us from having a B12 network for all games that don't include Texas.. as in, if we expand to bigger markets, cinci, memphis, or uconn, and then let them keep the LHN, that makes 15m, why couldn't the B12 network co-exist? If Texas wants to do theiir own thing, let them. There are a billion channels on cable TV, and they will bundle LHN with B12 network anyway in most cable deals.. .If Texas feels like they could make more by joining the B12 network then they could. Am I missing something big here? Since we need Texas - we could make it to where the B12 network could show road games or something as well as the b12 network... I mean why is it such a necessity for Texas to be included in a b12 network deal, b12 would still get subscriptions in texas from everybody, including longhorn fans.

The belief is that in order to get enough subscribers a BIG 12 network needs the University of Texas to be a part.
The networks won't take on the costs associated with starting a BIG 12 network without Texas being a part of it.

It might be in part because there would have to be x number of football, basketball, etc. games for inventory that would include the University of Texas--none of those could be on a BIG 12 network without UT being a part, and you probably couldn't mention Texas in any way.

 

[ColoradoMountaineer]

The belief is that in order to get enough subscribers a BIG 12 network needs the University of Texas to be a part.
The networks won't take on the costs associated with starting a BIG 12 network without Texas being a part of it.

It might be in part because there would have to be x number of football, basketball, etc. games for inventory that would include the University of Texas--none of those could be on a BIG 12 network without UT being a part, and you probably couldn't mention Texas in any way.

 

[TexasforevEER]

ColoradoKoolaid.......................you should not attempt to get into the EXPANSION debate. Leave this discussion to the brainiacs. When they figure things out they will let you know. Warez

 

[ColoradoMountaineer]

ColoradoKoolaid.......................you should not attempt to get into the EXPANSION debate. Leave this discussion to the brainiacs. When they figure things out they will let you know. Warez

ok...........................

 

[Buckaineer]

One thing Bowlsby and Schultz mentioned about the research they are doing is guaranteeing rivalries if they were to go to divisions.

One, two or three guaranteed rivalries looked at and how that would work out in scheduling.

These are probably the "sure bet" guaranteed rivalries:

Texas: OU
OU: Texas, OSU
OSU: OU
Baylor: TCU
TCU: Baylor
Kansas: Kansas State
Kansas State: Kansas

beyond that, according to Wikipedia, Baylor-Texas Tech (1929); Oklahoma State-Texas Tech (1935); TCU-Texas Tech (1926); Texas-Texas Tech (1928) are also rivalries

So adding those in would make it:

Texas: OU, Texas Tech
Texas Tech: UT, Baylor, OSU, TCU
OU: Texas, OSU
OSU: OU, Texas Tech
Baylor: TCU, Texas Tech
TCU: Baylor, Texas Tech
Kansas: Kansas State
Kansas State: Kansas

Iowa State and WVU don't really have established rivalry games here yet. Also doubt if four rivalries would be allowed, unless two of those are in your division maybe.

Just guessing that WVU would want something like OU, Baylor or TCU and maybe Kansas State?

It's going to be interesting to see how they would break things out with guaranteed rivalries.