What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The Longhorn Network

PhillyBuff

no longer awaiting CU football's return... we here
Club Member
I do not understand this very well. I did go to ShaggyBevo and read some threads over there (saw Snow get lit up quite a bit).

I do not understand some things about this network.

They claim that they won't share any revenues because it is their branded network. Ok... I get it... if they were going to show practices, campus stuff.. anything that is UT ONLY.

However, as soon as they show another school, like Kansas, then they ARE using another school's brand on their network. I would think that they have to pay for that..... Thus, the team that is being shown has the right to collect money for that. This is why a single school network does not make sense unless thay pay all of the schools that play on their network.

The NFL has it correct. All of the teams own the footage collectively under the NFL and it is inventoried in NFL Films. If anyone, ESPN, major networks etc, want to show ANYTHING NFL, they have to pay for it.

I know that ESPN, ABC, FOX, CBS, & NBC pay an annual fee for the use of NFL footage. That is how it works.

If I were Kansas, I would not allow UT to show my brand on their network without paying for it. They can not show ANYTHING.... even replays or highlights unless it is paid for.

I have not seen this discussed anywhere....

Can you see Texas showing highlights with the players from the other team eliminated?

Snow: feel free to use this argument over at Shag bevo...:nod:
 
Pretty sure that the other team gets money for playing a game on LHN.
 
Pretty sure that the other team gets money for playing a game on LHN.

I would think so... but there is a lot of misinfomation out there on Texas boards. Maybe they just... misremember?
 
Whorns appear to be giggly over the prospect of ESPN insisting/requiring that LHN be included in basic cable with ESPN - in other words, every home that has ESPN is also paying for LHN. This seems like a tough sell outside of that large, forsaken state, especially since everyone hates Texas except Texas.
 
Whorns appear to be giggly over the prospect of ESPN insisting/requiring that LHN be included in basic cable with ESPN - in other words, every home that has ESPN is also paying for LHN. This seems like a tough sell outside of that large, forsaken state, especially since everyone hates Texas except Texas.

This is a problem.... make someone pay for this channel to support a school that might be a direct rival.

That **** is **** ed up!
 
Whorns appear to be giggly over the prospect of ESPN insisting/requiring that LHN be included in basic cable with ESPN - in other words, every home that has ESPN is also paying for LHN. This seems like a tough sell outside of that large, forsaken state, especially since everyone hates Texas except Texas.

Good luck with that. ESPN has a lot of leverage, but it's not like ESPN Classic was successful despite all their strong arm tactics.
 
This is a problem.... make someone pay for this channel to support a school that might be a direct rival.

That **** is **** ed up!

This has been my point from the beginning.

Dislike of other teams is a force that drives college football. We want to support our team not others.

So the whole model of perpetuating those rivalries and games to exploit dollars from it, but then tapping into it and expecting those teams to financially support those teams they don't like is fundamentally flawed.

As a fanbase, we would rather not watch ESPN ever again, rather than pay for it knowing it would somehow support nebraska. That's how fans roll, and that's where ESPN ****ed up, in my opinion.
 
Whorns appear to be giggly over the prospect of ESPN insisting/requiring that LHN be included in basic cable with ESPN - in other words, every home that has ESPN is also paying for LHN. This seems like a tough sell outside of that large, forsaken state, especially since everyone hates Texas except Texas.

I have a good feeling that a lot of executives at major cable operators are alumni from other schools and would not be ok with this type of setup.
 
I am pretty sure that the HOME TEAM owns all the rights to television, advertising, etc. The team who visits does get paid by UT (or by the Big 12 conference for a conference game) and I think that payment is what they get in exchange for all their rights.
 
Whorns appear to be giggly over the prospect of ESPN insisting/requiring that LHN be included in basic cable with ESPN - in other words, every home that has ESPN is also paying for LHN. This seems like a tough sell outside of that large, forsaken state, especially since everyone hates Texas except Texas.

This is bound to be highly popular with those fans of the Aggies, Red Raiders, and even more with those fans of the Texas schools who are out of the AQ conferences thanks to Texas destruction of the SWC including Rice, SMU, etc.

Texas is very popular in that state but not as much as they think they are.
 
I am pretty sure that the HOME TEAM owns all the rights to television, advertising, etc. The team who visits does get paid by UT (or by the Big 12 conference for a conference game) and I think that payment is what they get in exchange for all their rights.
Under that rule... as a home team hosting Texas, I would not allow them to show my team on their network unless I was paid for that.

I am really arguing a slippery slope that a one school network does not make sense showing conference games... unless the revenue is shared.

The fundamental flaw in Texas arguing... "it is our network" is that they need another team to play them to have a game.
 
Yes, I misquoted some BCS stats (forgot it was bowl alliance in the mid 90's), and they jumped all over me while ignoring the actual point because that would hurt their vision of themselves. I don't need any help dissing the longhorn network, about half of them hate it themselves :lol:
 
Under that rule... as a home team hosting Texas, I would not allow them to show my team on their network unless I was paid for that.

I am really arguing a slippery slope that a one school network does not make sense showing conference games... unless the revenue is shared.

The fundamental flaw in Texas arguing... "it is our network" is that they need another team to play them to have a game.


Well, that's the thing. I think the only games Texas owns the rights to are those games played in Austin.

Of course, UT might be paying the other conference members something to have their games, too. They've certainly got the money for it.


Also -- keep in mind that the network is actually owned by ESPN. So probably anything that ESPN owns the right to (which would include all ABC games, etc.) the LHN can probably broadcast.
 
They claim that they won't share any revenues because it is their branded network. Ok... I get it... if they were going to show practices, campus stuff.. anything that is UT ONLY. However, as soon as they show another school, like Kansas, then they ARE using another school's brand on their network. I would think that they have to pay for that..... Thus, the team that is being shown has the right to collect money for that. This is why a single school network does not make sense unless thay pay all of the schools that play on their network.

So here's what's going on. Any revenue (at this point ad revenue) from games shown on LHN goes to LHN only. At this point since LHN is losing money, more games on LHN just means it loses less money. That means no increase in money to Texass right now from the Kansas game. It does mean a lower burn rate which directly helps ESPN. Of course Texass still wants more games on LHN because the more high rating programming it can carry, the more pressure there is on cable/sat co.'s to carry LHN. Which eventually would result in subscriber revenue to LHN and then at some point LHN might cross breakeven and Texass would share in the profits.

What does Kansas get? Well B12 regs say that in order for a conference game to get onto LHN, the other school must approve of it and of course the game must not be selected as Tier 1 or Tier 2 content by Fox/ESPN. In order to make that happen, ESPN paid Fox $4mm to not pick that game to broadcast. ESPN also paid KU a sum, I think it was in the multi-million dollar range as well, for their approval. So it was all voluntary. But look at the consequences for KU's fan base. Because LHN is not carried in Kansas, their fans don't get to watch the game unless they can pick up a scratchy over the air broadcast which will come from some undetermined local broadcaster. The overall treatment of the KU fanbase here is no different from when Georgia plays an FCS team like Coastal Carolina and pays them $1mm to show up. Except this time it's being done with your own conference teams. What would Buff fans think if they found out that their game with USC wouldn't be available on cable/sat and they'd need to get rabbit ears to catch the game (if even possible)? And you already know what the excuse/rationale from KU/UT is. KU: we needed the money. UT: suck it down biatches!
 
I love that UT may never see a dime from the network that they love so much to screw themselves over by holding it so dear.
 
So here's what's going on. Any revenue (at this point ad revenue) from games shown on LHN goes to LHN only. At this point since LHN is losing money, more games on LHN just means it loses less money. That means no increase in money to Texass right now from the Kansas game. It does mean a lower burn rate which directly helps ESPN. Of course Texass still wants more games on LHN because the more high rating programming it can carry, the more pressure there is on cable/sat co.'s to carry LHN. Which eventually would result in subscriber revenue to LHN and then at some point LHN might cross breakeven and Texass would share in the profits.

I think this information is incorrect. Texas gets paid, regardless of how profitable the LHN is. Texas agreed to a 15 year, $300 million contract with ESPN. Any loss in the distribution of the LHN is on ESPN, not Texas. Whether the LHN has 100,000,000 subscribers or 100 subscribers, I think Texas still gets their money.
 
Just reading this says it all about the root cause of all of this **** - ESPN.

All the schools and conferences are doing what they should - looking out for themselves.

All things being equal, with 120+ schools in D-1A (or whateverthe****) and multiple conferences, including 6 BCS conferences, competition should, for the most part, equal everything out.

But, when an external force comes in, throwing weight and money around, trying to make certain schools and conferences 'more equal than others', everything gets unbalanced, conferences and traditional rivalries get destroyed, and you end up with the mess the college football landscape has been in for the 12+ months.

I know, CBS, Fox, NBC, etc are all involved too, but they're all playing catchup to the real problem - ESPN.

JMO
 
I love that UT may never see a dime from the network that they love so much to screw themselves over by holding it so dear.

Unfortunately, UT doesn't need to see a dime from the network. They had more money than they knew how to spend BEFORE the LHN came into existence.
 
The biggest reason the LHN is a problem is the tremendous face time it could provide uTerus in potential recruits homes. Like Slade says, uTerus already has more money than they can spend. This is a recruiting tool and a network is the impetus to pushing favor towards 1 team.
 
I love that UT may never see a dime from the network that they love so much to screw themselves over by holding it so dear.

Well just remember that they are getting $300mm over 20 years (backloaded, but still...) from ESPN to contribute their rights to LHN. So Texass is kind of like the .com inventor who got a deep pocket investor to buy half of his company, even though the company had no employees, no sales, etc. Like the .com inventor Texass still wants the business to take off to monetize his stake in the company. The problem for ESPN and Texass is that it isn't taking off and absent getting some real programming on the channel it won't.
 
I think this information is incorrect. Texas gets paid, regardless of how profitable the LHN is. Texas agreed to a 15 year, $300 million contract with ESPN. Any loss in the distribution of the LHN is on ESPN, not Texas. Whether the LHN has 100,000,000 subscribers or 100 subscribers, I think Texas still gets their money.

Frank, see my response to SnowBuff (above).
 
Well, that's the thing. I think the only games Texas owns the rights to are those games played in Austin.

Of course, UT might be paying the other conference members something to have their games, too. They've certainly got the money for it.


Also -- keep in mind that the network is actually owned by ESPN. So probably anything that ESPN owns the right to (which would include all ABC games, etc.) the LHN can probably broadcast.

Games that ESPN / ABC own the rights to could possibly be considered Tier1 or Tier2. Especially if the other team is a conference-mate of Texas.
 
Cable television is a dirty business. In most markets, the cable provider has a monopoly (only recently dented by satellite and phone line providers.) That's why they can charge whatever the market will bear. Since most cable has been long since installed, the biggest cost of doing business is paying the networks for the programming. There's been a war in this area for years. Even now the networks are trying to get the cable companies to pay them for local stations whose broadcasts can be received over the air. Cable hasn't traditionally paid for those stations, but ABC, Fox, NBC, and CBS have been trying to change this.

For a content provider (like ESPN or the LHN), the sweet spot is to get onto a cable company's basic lineup, since the providers are paid per subscriber and there are millions of subscribers to basic cable. So ESPN gets its fee for every basic cable subscriber, which is a ****load of cash. But if ESPNU is only available on a higher tier, then ESPN gets a lot fewer dollars for ESPNU because of the fewer subscribers.

There is no ****ing way the LHN gets on a basic tier anywhere but Texas. Even in Texas, the cable companies will fight tooth and nail to keep it on an upper tier. Check out the Big Ten network on your cable system--unless you're in the Midwest it's on a sports tier. ESPN can try to throw their weight around to get the LHN on cable, but ESPN's weight is counteracted by the significant weight of the cable companies (who have had a license to print money for decades.)
 
Cable television is a dirty business. In most markets, the cable provider has a monopoly (only recently dented by satellite and phone line providers.) That's why they can charge whatever the market will bear. Since most cable has been long since installed, the biggest cost of doing business is paying the networks for the programming. There's been a war in this area for years. Even now the networks are trying to get the cable companies to pay them for local stations whose broadcasts can be received over the air. Cable hasn't traditionally paid for those stations, but ABC, Fox, NBC, and CBS have been trying to change this.

For a content provider (like ESPN or the LHN), the sweet spot is to get onto a cable company's basic lineup, since the providers are paid per subscriber and there are millions of subscribers to basic cable. So ESPN gets its fee for every basic cable subscriber, which is a ****load of cash. But if ESPNU is only available on a higher tier, then ESPN gets a lot fewer dollars for ESPNU because of the fewer subscribers.

There is no ****ing way the LHN gets on a basic tier anywhere but Texas. Even in Texas, the cable companies will fight tooth and nail to keep it on an upper tier. Check out the Big Ten network on your cable system--unless you're in the Midwest it's on a sports tier. ESPN can try to throw their weight around to get the LHN on cable, but ESPN's weight is counteracted by the significant weight of the cable companies (who have had a license to print money for decades.)

Even in Texas this is going to be an uphill battle for LHN. Cable subscriber rates are declining, more people are disconnecting and going to over air programing and streaming content. The cable and satelite companies are finding that subscribers are very price sensitive to the basic tier price prefering to choose what programing they pay extra for. Whichever provider picks up this channel is going to have a lot of people who are not interested in the pass on cost, even if the base cost to the provider is only 40 cents.

The cable companies are the ones losing the biggest number of subscribers, the satelite companies are not seeing growth but are retaining subscribers at a higher rate than landlined providers, mainly based on cost of service. The satelite companies have already shown that they are willing to push back against increasing rates.

ESPN may have bitten off a bigger piece than they can chew on this one.
 
I am pretty sure that the HOME TEAM owns all the rights to television, advertising, etc. The team who visits does get paid by UT (or by the Big 12 conference for a conference game) and I think that payment is what they get in exchange for all their rights.

This is not correct for teams in a conference. The Home Team's conference owns the rights to Television, advertising, etc. This even covers the OOC games. The conference negotiates the TV contracts. This is actually the crux of the LHN issue, it goes outside of the Conference TV contract and only benefits one team. I am sure the Big 12 gets paid something for the conference game on the LHN but it would not be a lot.
 
This is not correct for teams in a conference. The Home Team's conference owns the rights to Television, advertising, etc. This even covers the OOC games. The conference negotiates the TV contracts. This is actually the crux of the LHN issue, it goes outside of the Conference TV contract and only benefits one team. I am sure the Big 12 gets paid something for the conference game on the LHN but it would not be a lot.

The Big 12 does not own the 3rd Tier rights to games. That's the major sticking point for Texas and the Pac-12. In the Pac-12, they're owned by the conference and Texas refused to roll their rights in.
 
Back
Top