Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Missouri regents give Deaton permission to "explore conference affiliation" ...

SnowBuff said:
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1274491

Chippy says Mizz tried to get UT to agree to not show highschool games on the Bevo network, and UT said no. At that point, Mizz BOR voted for conference change.
Click to expand...

I am surprised at that. I would think EVERYONE in the conference (i.e. Oklahoma) would agree that UT should not be allowed to show high school games on their television network. (Unless, of course, OU is banking on showing high school games on IT'S network)
 
i suppose there have been an endless slew of "new" circumstances, but MU's administrative ability to make a decision seems pretty clumsy, unorganized, inefficient, or whatever word might fit better. unless they know they are leaving and throwing up a PR smokescreen or possibly playing "hard to get" for the Big XII. neither seem all that well executed, if either is true.
 
The Big 12 appears ready to expand, and the list of targets getting the most consideration right now continue to be BYU, TCU, Louisville and Cincinnati, multiple sources said.

But there is mixed opinions inside the league about whether to grow to 10 or 12 (with or without Missouri).

And here's why: ABC/ESPN agreed to keep paying the Big 12 as a 10-team league last summer for the remainder of its deal (through 2015-16). But if the league grows back to 12 and doesn't include Texas A&M, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado, but does include the likes of BYU, TCU, Louisville and Cincinnati, it's not necessarily a better TV product.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
SnowBuff said:
Or that they didn't care if mizzery did.
Click to expand...

They'll care when they add a couple teams in their footprint already that dont drawn on tv and the deal gets diluted. On paper Mizzery is very attractive.
 
absinthe said:
They'll care when they add a couple teams in their footprint already that dont drawn on tv and the deal gets diluted. On paper Mizzery is very attractive.
Click to expand...

Not sure why Texas cares if the deal is diluted. They are getting big bucks from ESPN, already. Diluted Big 12 conference deal or not - Texas has plenty of money.

Hell they have plenty of money without either the conference money OR the LHN money.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Not sure why Texas cares if the deal is diluted. They are getting big bucks from ESPN, already. Diluted Big 12 conference deal or not - Texas has plenty of money.

Hell they have plenty of money without either the conference money OR the LHN money.
Click to expand...

Currently they are having to pay teams to play on the LHN, no one is carrying it and the payout is only roughly 15 million a year (this year 4 of that went to KU). Losing money on the 1/2 tier rights and having the LHN continue to flail will bring their distributions down far below SEC/PAC/BIG1G.

Out side of that I cant argue, they could fore go TV money as still be way out ahead.
 
absinthe said:
Currently they are having to pay teams to play on the LHN, no one is carrying it and the payout is only roughly 15 million a year (this year 4 of that went to KU). Losing money on the 1/2 tier rights and having the LHN continue to flail will bring their distributions down far below SEC/PAC/BIG1G.

Out side of that I cant argue, they could fore go TV money as still be way out ahead.
Click to expand...

yeah but I think the losing money on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights only amounts to about $1.5 million. OU's people were talking about this on the radio the other day. They said that even 100% sharing of Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights only reduces OU/UT's payout by about $1.5 mil. Drop in the bucket to those schools.

And Texas gets their money from ESPN whether the LHN is broadcast on 1 TV or 1 billion TV's.

Combining their revenue from the Big 12 conference television deal (Tier 1 and Tier 2) with their LHN deal (Tier 3) and Texas makes more money than any single team in the Pac-12, SEC, Big 10, etc. when it comes to TV money. That doesn't even include their general donations which put them in the top 5 nationally on any given year, anyway.
 
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that UT would rather see Missouri go than stay. What does UT need Missouri for?
 
absinthe said:
Currently they are having to pay teams to play on the LHN, no one is carrying it and the payout is only roughly 15 million a year (this year 4 of that went to KU). Losing money on the 1/2 tier rights and having the LHN continue to flail will bring their distributions down far below SEC/PAC/BIG1G.
Click to expand...

Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
And Texas gets their money from ESPN whether the LHN is broadcast on 1 TV or 1 billion TV's. Combining their revenue from the Big 12 conference television deal (Tier 1 and Tier 2) with their LHN deal (Tier 3) and Texas makes more money than any single team in the Pac-12, SEC, Big 10, etc.
Click to expand...

ESPN pays UT $300mm over 20 years, which is $15mm per year on AVERAGE, but we know from the public release of the documents, that the payments are back end loaded. Actual payments to UT are $10.7mm per year increasing by 3% annually. To put that in perspective, Florida gets $9mm per yr from selling it's Tier 3 rights. And I'm guessing UF's Tier 1+2 TV revenues are greater than Texass' by more than $1.7mm. Which at least from a football perspective means Texass is NOT the top grossing CFB program from a TV rights standpoint.

Of course it's still a lot of money. And Texass has other revenue sources as well. But the real issue for Texass is that the LHN business model is not sustainable. Florida gets $9mm for selling its Tier 3 rights and its business partners (Sunshine) make money. Texass gets $10.7mm for selling its Tier 3 rights and its business partners lose $26mm per year. If Texass wants to be myopic, it can simply say, "Who cares? I'm still getting my 10.7 million". But does anyone really think the competing Tier 3 models (BTN, P12 regional, SEC's individual deals) are going to grow by only 3% per year? BTN, which distributed $7mm per school for its Tier 3 product, has already come out and projected 18% annual revenue growth for the next 5 years. Which means that in a few years, podunk Northwestern will be making more from its Tier 3 rights than Texass. Ponder on that for a moment.

Absinthe hit the nail on the head - Texass needs to have LHN start generating some revenues because otherwise Texass is locked into a long term contract that will be grossly inferior to what other schools are getting. The problem is that before LHN can start distributing a profit stream to its owners, it must cover that gaping $26mm burn rate. It's NOT going to happen. And that is the problem with a single school network: the business has too many fixed costs - you must be able to spread those costs over a lot of schools/events or else you drown under the cost base.
 
Cal84 said:
ESPN pays UT $300mm over 20 years, which is $15mm per year on AVERAGE, but we know from the public release of the documents, that the payments are back end loaded. Actual payments to UT are $10.7mm per year increasing by 3% annually. To put that in perspective, Florida gets $9mm per yr from selling it's Tier 3 rights. And I'm guessing UF's Tier 1+2 TV revenues are greater than Texass' by more than $1.7mm. Which at least from a football perspective means Texass is NOT the top grossing CFB program from a TV rights standpoint.

Of course it's still a lot of money. And Texass has other revenue sources as well. But the real issue for Texass is that the LHN business model is not sustainable. Florida gets $9mm for selling its Tier 3 rights and its business partners (Sunshine) make money. Texass gets $10.7mm for selling its Tier 3 rights and its business partners lose $26mm per year. If Texass wants to be myopic, it can simply say, "Who cares? I'm still getting my 10.7 million". But does anyone really think the competing Tier 3 models (BTN, P12 regional, SEC's individual deals) are going to grow by only 3% per year? BTN, which distributed $7mm per school for its Tier 3 product, has already come out and projected 18% annual revenue growth for the next 5 years. Which means that in a few years, podunk Northwestern will be making more from its Tier 3 rights than Texass. Ponder on that for a moment.

Absinthe hit the nail on the head - Texass needs to have LHN start generating some revenues because otherwise Texass is locked into a long term contract that will be grossly inferior to what other schools are getting. The problem is that before LHN can start distributing a profit stream to its owners, it must cover that gaping $26mm burn rate. It's NOT going to happen. And that is the problem with a single school network: the business has too many fixed costs - you must be able to spread those costs over a lot of schools/events or else you drown under the cost base.
Click to expand...

Good points, all. But keep in mind the loss is hitting ABC/ESPN - not Texas. I don't know if you have watched a lot of ESPN lately - but they are pumping this LHN like crazy. I saw the other day where they had an interview with UT's defensive coordinator, talking about the upcoming Red River Rivalry game -- and it was in the LHN studio -- but they were broadcasting it on ESPN.

I do not know if the LHN will work, or not. I do know that the largest marketing firm in the US (ESPN) is going to do everything they can to make it successful. It would not surprise me at all if ESPN/ABC start to REQUIRE cable companies to offer LHN if they want to also offer ESPN. ESPN has driven their costs through the roof in recent years. I remember having a conversation with an executive from Cox Cable back when I was doing some municipal law and negotiating a new television rights package / utility agreement - he said ESPN had raised their rates even in non-contract renewal years -- and the cable industry had complied (by passing the buck down to consumers, of course.)

Time will tell if it works or not. Texas is making major change - that much I do know.
 
Is there a scenario where this all blows up in Texas' face and they go bankrupt? If so, that's the scenario I'm rooting for.
 
Of course ESPN is going to flog LHN. ESPN is committed to spending $26*20 = $520 million dollars over the next two decades on a product that is generating zero in revenues currently. Wouldn't you do everything in your power to get that plane off the ground if you were committed to pay half a billion bucks for it?

But let's look at the only way ESPN can realistically get cable/sat co's to carry LHN. And that is to put more football games on LHN. No, not high school games. UT games. ESPN paid $9 mm to get the UT-Kansas game on LHN ($4mm to Fox to have it waive its rights to the game and $5mm to Kansas to get their approval). Which brought their inventory of UT football games on LHN to two. Which motivated the cable/sat guys not a bit. But what if ESPN bought more games, say 9 of them a year? That would still be well below BTN's inventory, but let's just say that it would be enough to get cable/sat guys to carry LHN.

Assuming static figures, the costs of running LHN go up to 26+9*9 = $107mm per year. But now LHN is carried by all the cable/sat co's in Texas. So they get carriage revenue. How much is that going to be? Well we already know LHN wants to charge $0.80 per household per month. From the last census (2009) we know Texas has 9,724,000 households. Texas is not amongst the 25 states with the highest cable penetration rate. Indiana is #25 at 72%. So we'll just assume a 70% cable penetration rate for Texas. That gives us 6.8 million Texas households with cable. Of those about 30% will have basic cable (no ESPN). That brings us down to 4.76mm households with cable programming packages that would include LHN. 4.76*.8*12 = $45.7 mm per year in carriage revenue. That's if every cable/sat co. in Texas agreed to carry LHN at LHN's desired price. You'll notice that revenue is less than half their expense rate. Doh.

Like I said, too many obstacles for a single school network. BTN will always have games like Northwestern vs. Indiana or Minnesota v. Purdue drop down to Tier 3 and can broadcast those games for free (after paying for production costs). Texas can't do that and it can't spread it's fixed costs over enough events. It's a bad business model. One that Texas is locked into for 20 years....
 
epsn cant even get espn classic on basic...what makes them think they can get lhn on basic
 
Cal84 said:
Of course ESPN is going to flog LHN. ESPN is committed to spending $26*20 = $520 million dollars over the next two decades on a product that is generating zero in revenues currently. Wouldn't you do everything in your power to get that plane off the ground if you were committed to pay half a billion bucks for it?

But let's look at the only way ESPN can realistically get cable/sat co's to carry LHN. And that is to put more football games on LHN. No, not high school games. UT games. ESPN paid $9 mm to get the UT-Kansas game on LHN ($4mm to Fox to have it waive its rights to the game and $5mm to Kansas to get their approval). Which brought their inventory of UT football games on LHN to two. Which motivated the cable/sat guys not a bit. But what if ESPN bought more games, say 9 of them a year? That would still be well below BTN's inventory, but let's just say that it would be enough to get cable/sat guys to carry LHN.

Assuming static figures, the costs of running LHN go up to 26+9*9 = $107mm per year. But now LHN is carried by all the cable/sat co's in Texas. So they get carriage revenue. How much is that going to be? Well we already know LHN wants to charge $0.80 per household per month. From the last census (2009) we know Texas has 9,724,000 households. Texas is not amongst the 25 states with the highest cable penetration rate. Indiana is #25 at 72%. So we'll just assume a 70% cable penetration rate for Texas. That gives us 6.8 million Texas households with cable. Of those about 30% will have basic cable (no ESPN). That brings us down to 4.76mm households with cable programming packages that would include LHN. 4.76*.8*12 = $45.7 mm per year in carriage revenue. That's if every cable/sat co. in Texas agreed to carry LHN at LHN's desired price. You'll notice that revenue is less than half their expense rate. Doh.

Like I said, too many obstacles for a single school network. BTN will always have games like Northwestern vs. Indiana or Minnesota v. Purdue drop down to Tier 3 and can broadcast those games for free (after paying for production costs). Texas can't do that and it can't spread it's fixed costs over enough events. It's a bad business model. One that Texas is locked into for 20 years....
Click to expand...

Since when? I have ATT Uverse, every ****ing channel available, and I do not see LHN on my guide....
 
66BUFF said:
epsn cant even get espn classic on basic...what makes them think they can get lhn on basic
Click to expand...

They can't. That's why I EXCLUDED basic cable subscribers from my calculations.

DallasBuff said:
Since when? I have ATT Uverse, every ****ing channel available, and I do not see LHN on my guide....
Click to expand...

Dude, reread my post. The sentence of mine you quoted was under the assumption that all cable/sat co.'s carry LHN. Currently no major cable/sat co's carry it other than Verizon FioS.
 
Cal84 said:
They can't. That's why I EXCLUDED basic cable subscribers from my calculations.



Dude, reread my post. The sentence of mine you quoted was under the assumption that all cable/sat co.'s carry LHN. Currently no major cable/sat co's carry it other than Verizon FioS.
Click to expand...

Sorry...no time to read anything more than one sentence....thanks for the clarity.
 
Fake Dan Beebe strikes again :)

@DanBeebe said:
I wonder if Missouri knows joining the SEC doesn't mean it gets to own slaves again. Trent Richardson is a free man..
Click to expand...
 
DallasBuff said:
Since when? I have ATT Uverse, every ****ing channel available, and I do not see LHN on my guide....
Click to expand...

The CEO of AT&T is a Boomer Sooner so I don't think they add it unless one of the other big carriers do first.
 
One source said there's a group of presidents that wants to sit tight, believing the SEC can do better than Missouri and that No. 14 should come from the East. According to both sources, Alabama wants to look East and not risk losing its annual game against Tennessee, while Auburn favors adding Missouri and moving to the Eastern Division.
 
Bama Charlie said:
One source said there's a group of presidents that wants to sit tight, believing the SEC can do better than Missouri and that No. 14 should come from the East. According to both sources, Alabama wants to look East and not risk losing its annual game against Tennessee, while Auburn favors adding Missouri and moving to the Eastern Division.
Click to expand...
dissension in the ranks is not good for prospective members. Just ask OU and Texas.
 
**** Mizzou.

They can eat a bucket of dicks.

That being said, I would love to see them taking on Vandy and Kentucky for the worst team in the SEC honors for the next 10 years before they flame out of the conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top