http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...tle-051115


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

haha - that's one of the best reads I've read in a long time.......

ESPN has the leverage here. Tell Texas they either make it into the Big 12 Network or the channel folds. That's literally the only options they have at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I cant imagine ESPN is dumb enough to think that third tier rights for a single team can support a national network. I think his was always a 15 million a year bribe to Texas designed to keep the Big-12 stable and viable.

ESPN isn't dumb, they knew this would be a $$ loser. for 15 mil per year, 2/3 of what B12 schools get for TV they saved the B12.

All the #s they showed was for subscriber cost, didn't show what they bring in with regular advertising. I have no doubt they are losing $$$ but the #s may not be anywhere near what is implied.

(05-17-2015 09:50 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  ESPN isn't dumb, they knew this would be a $$ loser. for 15 mil per year, 2/3 of what B12 schools get for TV they saved the B12.

All the #s they showed was for subscriber cost, didn't show what they bring in with regular advertising. I have no doubt they are losing $$$ but the #s may not be anywhere near what is implied.

I doubt they make much with advertising. I also doubt thier costs are that high. There is no traveling. The events covered are all at one location and are set in a handful of venues. I suspect it probably isn't a big financial burden nor do I believe it will ever be a large financial windfall. It was just a cheap way to keep the Big12 together.

ESPN could push the Big 12 to expand to new virgin markets that would snap up the Big 12 network if their area school would be added in.... that is if anyone could think of any candidates.

(05-17-2015 09:36 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  ESPN has the leverage here. Tell Texas they either make it into the Big 12 Network or the channel folds. That's literally the only options they have at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ESPN has no leverage--UT has a contract. UT gets their money come hell or high water, unless ESPN can find a way to make UT *want* the LHN to go away. ESPN could shut down the LHN, but they'd be in breach of contract and still have to pay UT.

That said, ESPN and UT didn't exactly plan on a channel no one wants and no one watches. It's an irritation to the UT coaches, who have to produce content whose only audience is other schools' film rooms.

EDIT: Something I hadn't noticed before--if the LHN is pulling in $22M in Texas from subscribers, then it's making an operating profit for ESPN. $22M - $15M is $7M. The "ESPN has lots its shirt on the LHN" includes the startup costs for the network, which is true from an accounting perspective, but meaningless from a going-forward perspective. The money spent to build LHN Studios or whatever is gone whether or not ESPN keeps the LHN or shuts it down or whatever. It's not like ESPN can get a do-over on those costs.

"In today's sports marketplace, there's no room for single-team channels."


The writer could of saved an ink cartridge and tremendous precious time in bad mouthing UT and ESPN's horrible business tactics by simply writing this ^^^. (above)

But NO, he felt the need everyone who read his piece would have no trouble recognizing a masterful hater A+ bashing vs a good positive one.

LOL

(05-17-2015 10:55 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  "In today's sports marketplace, there's no room for single-team channels."


The writer could of saved an ink cartridge and tremendous precious time in bad mouthing UT and ESPN's horrible business tactics by simply writing this ^^^. (above)

But NO, he felt the need everyone who read his piece would have no trouble recognizing a masterful hater A+ bashing vs a good positive one.

LOL

Exactly. If Notre Dame can't do it, there's little reason to think Texas could support a single school national network. My guess is the current contract plays out and the LHN morphs into a Big-12 Network, which would likely enjoy better and wider distribution and would have 10 football games rather than one.

(05-17-2015 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:55 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  "In today's sports marketplace, there's no room for single-team channels."


The writer could of saved an ink cartridge and tremendous precious time in bad mouthing UT and ESPN's horrible business tactics by simply writing this ^^^. (above)

But NO, he felt the need everyone who read his piece would have no trouble recognizing a masterful hater A+ bashing vs a good positive one.

LOL

Exactly. If Notre Dame can't do it, there's little reason to think Texas could support a single school national network. My guess is the current contract plays out and the LHN morphs into a Big-12 Network, which would likely enjoy better and wider distribution and would have 10 football games rather than one.

The LHN $$$ was the only thing that kept the Horns from bolting the Big1/2 not its present fellow members.

I think if the LHN is pulled away from them, UT could take the independence route much like what BYU just did but be more successful quicker and away from programs who in reality bring nothing to the table to begin with.

The network was a bribe and is the reason it would pay out what it regardless of it's subscriptions. That being said UT has no motivation to do anything until the end of the current contract cycle. There is a consolidation of content going on and that's why I think the acc grew. It was a hedge. Espn is probably going to lose the b10. If they do I thnk fox also goes hard after the b12. Then espn strips the core properties and sends them to the PAC. The texoma brands are worth the most and they will be sheltered in an espn conf. After that I think fox starts a network and will invite mostly eastern time zone population centers to make up for the lack of TVs in the the other markets. I think the AAC loses members then. Jmo

(05-17-2015 10:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:36 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  ESPN has the leverage here. Tell Texas they either make it into the Big 12 Network or the channel folds. That's literally the only options they have at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ESPN has no leverage--UT has a contract. UT gets their money come hell or high water, unless ESPN can find a way to make UT *want* the LHN to go away. ESPN could shut down the LHN, but they'd be in breach of contract and still have to pay UT.

That said, ESPN and UT didn't exactly plan on a channel no one wants and no one watches. It's an irritation to the UT coaches, who have to produce content whose only audience is other schools' film rooms.

EDIT: Something I hadn't noticed before--if the LHN is pulling in $22M in Texas from subscribers, then it's making an operating profit for ESPN. $22M - $15M is $7M. The "ESPN has lots its shirt on the LHN" includes the startup costs for the network, which is true from an accounting perspective, but meaningless from a going-forward perspective. The money spent to build LHN Studios or whatever is gone whether or not ESPN keeps the LHN or shuts it down or whatever. It's not like ESPN can get a do-over on those costs.

Even with the $25 million they are making, I am not exactly certain they are making much money. Remember that they have to buy content at times. They have paid over a million each year to get an additional football game.
Then they have operational expenses which run in the millions and of courses taxes on all of that... but for arguments sake, let say they are making $5 million a year... with over $40 million invested it will take them 8 years to just break even.
Thats a bad investment all the way around.


This is why I have thought for some time that the LHN was simply a bribe to hold them steady for a period of time. In time, I believe they will convert the channel to being a regional network on the Pac12 network.... which is making money hand over fist.


the one line that I found REALLY interesting was this:

"Without Texas A&M leaving for the SEC, the SEC's own network wasn't lucrative enough to undertake. It was the eight million cable and satellite subscribers in Texas that made the SEC Network financially viable."

The SEC has so many small markets that it wouldnt have been financially feasable to start.... and yet many people when talking about conference realignment believe that if the Big 12 were to fold, teams like West Virginia or TCU could get into the SEC. I think this pretty much shows what it will take to move the needle within the SECs income.

We are really bored if we are discussing articles from 2011

(05-17-2015 12:43 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  We are really bored if we are discussing articles from 2011

It was posted May 11th, 2015


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-17-2015 12:24 PM)mtmedlin Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:36 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  ESPN has the leverage here. Tell Texas they either make it into the Big 12 Network or the channel folds. That's literally the only options they have at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ESPN has no leverage--UT has a contract. UT gets their money come hell or high water, unless ESPN can find a way to make UT *want* the LHN to go away. ESPN could shut down the LHN, but they'd be in breach of contract and still have to pay UT.

That said, ESPN and UT didn't exactly plan on a channel no one wants and no one watches. It's an irritation to the UT coaches, who have to produce content whose only audience is other schools' film rooms.

EDIT: Something I hadn't noticed before--if the LHN is pulling in $22M in Texas from subscribers, then it's making an operating profit for ESPN. $22M - $15M is $7M. The "ESPN has lots its shirt on the LHN" includes the startup costs for the network, which is true from an accounting perspective, but meaningless from a going-forward perspective. The money spent to build LHN Studios or whatever is gone whether or not ESPN keeps the LHN or shuts it down or whatever. It's not like ESPN can get a do-over on those costs.

Even with the $25 million they are making, I am not exactly certain they are making much money. Remember that they have to buy content at times. They have paid over a million each year to get an additional football game.
Then they have operational expenses which run in the millions and of courses taxes on all of that... but for arguments sake, let say they are making $5 million a year... [b]with over $40 million invested it will take them 8 years to just break even.[/b]
Thats a bad investment all the way around.

My point is, though, that the $40M is GONE. The $40M is only relevant if you're deciding today whether to start the LHN. But they're not. The question is, are LHN expenses in FY 2015 more or less than LHN revenues in 2015. It doesn't matter how much ESPN spent to build the studios or whatever. (Except in so far as the ESPN honchos that made the decision are still invested in it.)

Unless there is a time machine in Bristol somewhere, the choice is A) continue to operate the LHN or B) shut down the LHN. Since the network is making an operating profit (before deductions for debt, taxes, etc) the network is going to keep operating.

The only way the LHN would go away is if
A) ESPN figured out a way to make Texas want the LHN to go away
B) ESPN were losing so much money on the LHN that they would pay Texas to let them out of the contract.

(05-17-2015 12:04 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  The network was a bribe and is the reason it would pay out what it regardless of it's subscriptions. That being said UT has no motivation to do anything until the end of the current contract cycle. There is a consolidation of content going on and that's why I think the acc grew. It was a hedge. Espn is probably going to lose the b10. If they do I thnk fox also goes hard after the b12. Then espn strips the core properties and sends them to the PAC. The texoma brands are worth the most and they will be sheltered in an espn conf. After that I think fox starts a network and will invite mostly eastern time zone population centers to make up for the lack of TVs in the the other markets. I think the AAC loses members then. Jmo

This I could see happening. Except about the PAC. I could see where UCF, USF,Cincinnati Tulane and Memphis maybe a New Mexico type.(long shot) would be very favorable as it brings new areas and gets into some new states. Nothing against Tulsa and Houston but I just think the markets are already saturated. Unless a Texas left or Oklahoma then it just doesn't make much sense. Longhorn network would morph into bug whatever network.

(05-17-2015 10:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:36 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  ESPN has the leverage here. Tell Texas they either make it into the Big 12 Network or the channel folds. That's literally the only options they have at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ESPN has no leverage--UT has a contract. UT gets their money come hell or high water, unless ESPN can find a way to make UT *want* the LHN to go away. ESPN could shut down the LHN, but they'd be in breach of contract and still have to pay UT.

That said, ESPN and UT didn't exactly plan on a channel no one wants and no one watches. It's an irritation to the UT coaches, who have to produce content whose only audience is other schools' film rooms.

EDIT: Something I hadn't noticed before--if the LHN is pulling in $22M in Texas from subscribers, then it's making an operating profit for ESPN. $22M - $15M is $7M. The "ESPN has lots its shirt on the LHN" includes the startup costs for the network, which is true from an accounting perspective, but meaningless from a going-forward perspective. The money spent to build LHN Studios or whatever is gone whether or not ESPN keeps the LHN or shuts it down or whatever. It's not like ESPN can get a do-over on those costs.

because contracts are always honored and never have backdoor or performance clauses.

odd troll attempt defending espn and the lhn from a c7 fan. just odd

(05-17-2015 05:28 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:04 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  The network was a bribe and is the reason it would pay out what it regardless of it's subscriptions. That being said UT has no motivation to do anything until the end of the current contract cycle. There is a consolidation of content going on and that's why I think the acc grew. It was a hedge. Espn is probably going to lose the b10. If they do I thnk fox also goes hard after the b12. Then espn strips the core properties and sends them to the PAC. The texoma brands are worth the most and they will be sheltered in an espn conf. After that I think fox starts a network and will invite mostly eastern time zone population centers to make up for the lack of TVs in the the other markets. I think the AAC loses members then. Jmo

This I could see happening. Except about the PAC. I could see where UCF, USF,Cincinnati Tulane and Memphis maybe a New Mexico type.(long shot) would be very favorable as it brings new areas and gets into some new states. Nothing against Tulsa and Houston but I just think the markets are already saturated. Unless a Texas left or Oklahoma then it just doesn't make much sense. Longhorn network would morph into bug whatever network.

Depending what areas of US the saturated part you basing your point across is a point very much loudly overrated... Now this, having small town schools with absolutely ZERO market at all like many presently in the so called p5 who literally just bring a bag of peanuts and yet everyone says you must bring $15-20 million to the table in order to be invited. lol

Nothing against you but that's pretty much how I feel when someone mentions areas being saturated.

And too, I guess ESPN had the same business view/mindset and thought Texas was saturdated and paid dearly $$$ for the LHN. Brilliant.

What is all this 'ESPN saved the big 12' crap?

The LHN is the reason the big 12 almost imploded....