Everything I've been hearing is that this is a concession that's being made to attract OU. Apparently OU has been arguing for this for a while, even if it's at their expense, to solidify the conference so they have some long term stability. It was a concern of every school they contacted for expansion...and OU was on that committee... OU wants their own network.
someone screwed up here. that game isn't until mid-October. why would you need to return unsold allotment of tickets for a game that's 5 weeks away? i remember buying tickets like that as late as a week or 10 days before a BU/A&M game in College Station back in the early 90's. obviously that's been a while and subject to change. i have a friend who is a student at BU who says he has no idea where the story came from, because when he called the ticket office at BU, he was told all the tickets were sold. it may be the BU ticket office screwed up. there is tons of excitement at BU right now about RG3 and the team. They had about 9,000 student seats purchased for the TCU game, which accounts for nearly 70% of the undergraduate enrollment.
Yeah - everyone seems to agree on that being OU's demand. The whole thing just strikes me as weird. It seems the conference is saying "Please stay, OU! We'll give you less money and make you make an ironclad commitment to us. Sound good?!" The instability wasn't caused by unequal revenue sharing - it shows the unequal nature of the conference, but it's a symptom rather than the cause. Nebraska and A&M were beneficiaries of it and they are the ones that left. Outside of Missouri, the schools that would leave primarily due to revenue sharing issues aren't the ones that anyone should be worried about leaving. On the expansion front, I can see BYU making that a condition of joining. But the SMU/UH types would join no matter what. The Big East schools would want guarantees so they aren't left homeless in a few years, but they'll get a ton more money regardless, so I can't imagine revenue sharing being the deal breaker for them, and the current Tier 1 deal is only for a couple of more years anyway.
It's restricted to Tier 3 games. The issue here was whether the LHN would be allowed to pay the opposing school and the Tier 1/2 provider to pass on the game to grow the network. If the opposing school and the providers are happy with the compensation given for this one game, what exactly is the problem? The opposing school and the networks would have been compensated at a level they were comfortable with. What's the problem? UT gets the same amount of money whether or not the game is on the network. The opposing school can only get MORE money by the game being shown on the LHN as they'll be paid for moving the game. The Tier 1/2 providers only get MORE money by the game being shown on the LHN. I'm failing to see what the issue is.
This is the problem as I see it... The Big 10 has a successful network that bundles the third tier rights for the conference. The PAC 12 is looking at doing the exact same thing. The Mountain West already has as well. The SEC has plans to do the same. This is the future of college athletics. Since Texas has already sold their 3rd tier rights to ESPN, it reduces the value of the remaining third tier package to be bundled into a network for whatever conference they are in. It is to the detriment of every other school in the conference.
This is the thing that people forget. Baylor does not have a huge student population. If you get 70% of any student body at any school to go to an event, it is a success.
Then why don't the sales of similar rights by Ohio State, Kansas, Florida, etc. also cause a problem? Why is it just the Longhorn Network? Prior to the Longhorn Network, Kansas had the highest income from third tier rights in the Big XII. None of that money went to any other Big XII team. Nobody was saying anything about this until UT wrapped their third tier rights in a burnt orange package.
Oh, it could have something to do with the fact that it is a 20 year commitment to ESPN that would preclude the Longhorns from being included in a third tier conference network. Ohio State's third tier rights are also tied up in the Big Ten Network. They must appear on that network at least twice a year, and one of those must be a conference game. With the LHN contract, Texas can make no such guarantees. All of their third tier rights belong to ESPN by the existing contract. That is why it is a problem.
800 students buy ticketz for a 100 mile road trip, what is the % on that? I cnt times good but my guess is low.
If I recall correctly, every Big 12 school approved of the development and implementation of the Longhorn Network. This didn't sneak up on anybody.
Notice anyone you're leaving out of your "it's all good" scenario? Namely, the 9 other Big12 schools - remember them? They want Texas games on the national stage because it promotes the universities and raises the conference's national profile, which leads to higher future television contracts. This gets even trickier when Texas (and more so ESPN) starts strong-arming non-tier 3 schools to agree to move their games to TLN, which we know has already happened. It creates a potential scenario in which ESPN could, for instance, say to Texas Tech, "Move your UT game to TLN or we won't show any of your other games on ESPN." That's the Pandora's box TLN is opening. When Texas takes those games off the national stage and into their own private backyard - while still being above-and-beyond handsomely compensated by the networks that are no longer showing their games - it is rightly a massive problem for the conference's other schools. Because it's not like ESPN fills the slot with the next best Big12 option; they have deals with *all* the conferences. So they go to the next-best *match-up* overall meaning potentially no Big12 exposure at all. Again, while Texas is being compensated greater than, likely, the other 9 schools. With no opinion whatsoever on TLN's viability otherwise, surely you can see why that's a giant red flag?
The other 9 schools are guaranteed their cut of the $1 billion TV contract that was signed last year. The LHN doesn't affect that at all. Texas Tech, Baylor, ISU, etc. will not see a dime less just because the UT-Kansas game is on the LHN.
I understand that. But let's keep in mind: cuts that are significantly less than UT's. Not on this contract, no. And, in fact, KU will see *more* money because UT is paying them to change the game to TLN - see how slippery a slope this is? But what the other 9 schools could see is the conference's profile reduced with fewer games broadcast on Fox/ESPN (UT being the biggest draw from the conference, give or take OU) and thus a lesser TV contract (ie even smaller cut) when the current deals expire, if not, in theory, no cut at all if UT were to take the TLN and leave the conference. UT isn't even sniffing going independent w/o TLN. No one from UT should *ever* apologize for TLN. They found a partner and made the deal and good for them. But UT changed the landscape here. They aired high school football games, which was never part of the proposed package; they asked non tier-3 schools to allow them to move their games to TLN... The other schools would have been FOOLS to not see the writing on the wall and how this could all potentially play out.
This is where you are wrong. When the other schools agreed to remain (subject to the withdrawal provisions which A&M is trying to exercise), they were told that LHN would show one football game a season and that there were no intentions to show conference football games. In July, the LHN contract became public via a FOIA request. The contract states that the intention is to show at least one conference football game. Immediately thereafter, A&M called Mike Slive at the SEC.
From OB. (a) I hope they are right and (b) I hope nothing stops them. 2 or 3 weeks is a long time. http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1263940 Sources say OU Board ready to apply to Pac-12 Oklahoma will apply for membership to the Pac-12 before the end of the month, and Oklahoma State is expected to follow suit, a source close to OU's administration told Orangebloods.com. Even though Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said Friday the Pac-12 was not interested in expansion at this time, OU's board of regents is fed up with the instability in the Big 12, the source said. The OU board of regents will meet within two weeks to formalize plans to apply for membership to the Pac-12, the source said. Messages left Sunday night with OU athletic director Joe Castiglione and Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder were not immediately returned. If OU follows through with what appears to be a unanimous sentiment on the seven-member Oklahoma board of regents to leave the Big 12, realignment in college athletics could be heating back up. OU's application would be matched by an application from Oklahoma State, the source said, even though OSU president Burns Hargis and mega-booster Boone Pickens both voiced their support for the Big 12 last Thursday. There is differing sentiment about if the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors are ready to expand again after bringing in Colorado and Utah last year and landing $3 billion TV contracts from Fox and ESPN. Colorado president Bruce Benson told reporters last week CU would be opposed to any expansion that might bring about east and west divisions in the Pac-12. Currently, there are north and south divisions in the Pac-12. If OU and OSU were to join, Larry Scott would have to get creative. Scott's orginal plan last summer was to bring in Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and put them in an eastern division with Arizona and Arizona State. The old Pac-8 schools (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State) were to be in the west division. Colorado made the move in June 2010, but when Texas A&M was not on board to go west, the Big 12 came back together with the help of its television partners (ABC/ESPN and Fox). If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were accepted into the Pac-12, there would undoubtedly be a hope by Larry Scott that Texas would join the league. But Texas sources have indicated UT is determined to hang onto the Longhorn Network, which would not be permissible in the Pac-12 in its current form. Texas sources continue to indicate to Orangebloods.com that if the Big 12 falls apart, the Longhorns would consider "all options." Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe held an emergency conference call 10 days ago with league presidents excluding Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M and asked the other league presidents to "work on Texas" because Beebe didn't think the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma without Texas. Now, it appears OU is willing to take its chances with the Pac-12 with or without Texas. There seemed to be a temporary pause in any possible shifting of the college athletics' landscape when Baylor led a charge to tie up Texas A&M's move to the Southeastern Conference in legal red tape. BU refused to waive its right to sue the SEC over A&M's departure from the Big 12, and the SEC said it would not admit Texas A&M until it had been cleared of any potential lawsuits. Baylor, Kansas and Iowa State have indicated they will not waive their right to sue the SEC. It's unclear if an application by OU to the Pac-12 would draw the same threats of litigation against the Pac-12 from those Big 12 schools. Stay tuned.
