(02-25-2019 08:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 04:42 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:06 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Those PAC12 folks are getting frustrated with their leadership.

UT and OU being SEC "prospects" is a given in the next expansion round. Saying "viable", would apply, but we are a few years before "confirmable" can be rationally declared, pre-contract.

I have a hunch the ultimate picks will become focused and obvious when time draws near. I doubt there will be an appetizing smorgasbord of schools to pick from. There isn't much now that looks really enticing beyond the B12's top two, maybe three.

UT can be predictable in that they can flirt with multiple, self-generated proposals, plus external offers, then backtrack, by changing their minds or through a denial(s). OU would prefer and Okie State move with them. That limits one, maybe two, options.

The PAC12, several years back, turned down an OU/oSu move. That was short-sighted. Had that happened, the PAC12 would be in better shape today. They may not get that opportunity again.

I look for CBS and the SEC to formalize a new whopper of a deal by 2021. CBS want to lock in and the SEC wants to scoop the 2022 Big 10 renewal. It would also mean that anyone leaving the Big 12 could give their required 2 year notice and the precedent is to play another year and to leave that revenue to cover the last year. If the networks cover the remaining schools revenue until the GOR expires in the 2023-4 season then damage claims for leaving early are essentially mitigated.

If Alston cause Vanderbilt to want to step down in football commitment then we might have 3 full member slots available.

It will make for an interesting next two years.

I think we can still safely say that Texas will want Texas Tech in the deal. If we also make a move for Oklahoma and Kansas then we'll pretty much solidify the best package any network could want.

If CBS and ESPN are working on a renegotiation at the same time then I could even see CBS getting a handful more games in the package. ESPN would be getting plenty of extra content anyway. I don't think they'd need every new game to make it worth their while.

I think that's especially true if they figure out a new plan for the LHN. Right now, the LHN makes a pittance with very little distribution. If Texas is in the fold of the SEC then I think it makes the most sense to figure out a long term plan for the network that uses content for the entire conference.

I don't think you could do an SEC Network 2 and have it be just as successful, but I think you could get creative with it. Something that appeals to all the hardcore fans would be the most profitable, i think.

Or perhaps you do a Spanish language version of the SECN?

Perhaps you show content on there other than exclusively SEC events? Something that appeals to the region?

The wildcard here is what does Alston do to the ACC? Do certain schools then get moved into the SEC? What does that do to the value of the ACC Network? Lot of possibilities.

The SECN has 3 channels now. I could easily see the LHN being added to that grouping. Then what you would have would be the SECEastN and the SECWestN each with one overflow channel. One would be based in Charlotte and the other in Dallas, or wherever it is that the LHN is located. They would be sold as one network but would merely double the coverage while sharing news and Finebaum and SEC Storied as part of the programming. It would draw more subscribers within the footprint because there would be more softball, baseball, and gymnastics to be seen and many fans don't travel to attend these events.

So whether we move to 16 or 18 this would work. The money presently being talked would more than cover the conversion of the LHN.

So whether we add Texas and Oklahoma, or that pair plus one of these pairs (Tech/OSU, Kansas/WVU, or some other) doesn't matter. I do think if we move to 18 we will have to have 9 conference games. And I still think 16 is far more likely than 18.

I really think we need one national channel. That will make it easier to market outside the footprint if nothing else. The more national brands we have, the more we can charge out of market...on both subs and ads. I think that's the key.

That and the overflow feeds we currently have don't get used much as it is. Really, the only time of year they have any usefulness is the Spring when there are so many baseball and softball games. In fact, I've only noticed one of them being used at any given time. I don't even think they're both available in all markets. The rest of our content is available through SECN+ so I don't know that the cost of putting more on cable would actually have much benefit.

More targeted advertising could be helpful, but the audiences for anything outside of football and basketball aren't going to be huge. I think we run the risk of diluting the effectiveness of any ad campaign a customer might want to purchase.

The only conference that has ventured into multiple live feeds is the PAC. Of course, they have numerous issues, but I think pushing content to regional feeds has not been productive. To some degree, they are competing against themselves by trying to anchor multiple channels at the same time.

I know technically we're talking two national channels here rather than regional feeds, but I think it will be harder to sell two networks even if it's for a bundled price.

I don't think ESPN would go that route because it would also reduce the number of football and basketball games available for the primary channels upstream.

I think whatever they use the LHN infrastructure for, it's got to be something you can't get anywhere else. Otherwise, selling it to cable companies will be tougher.

I had two channels for the SECN in use for most of the Fall too. And ATU it wouldn't be bundled it would merely only be sold as a unit. What you are missing is that the SEC has 3 channels, but is only billed to the providers as a single unit. Dedicating 2 and using two as an overflow doesn't cost them a nickel more.