Big12/Pac10 Alliance a Boon for Both.

[cykadelic2]

Could we buy out of the Fox Sports Net deal? Or do we have to wait until 2012-2013 for a network to start?

ABC/ESPN: Eight years, $480 million through 2015-16
Fox Sports Net: Four years, $78 million through 2011-12

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...als/index.html

If the Big 12 starts their own network in 2012-13, they can opt out of the ABC/ESPN contract at that time.

[snowcraig2.0]

What Clark is trying to say is, 'NOTHING CAN BE BETTER THAN THE BIG TEN!!!!!!!!!!'

[Clark]

What Clark is trying to say is, 'NOTHING CAN BE BETTER THAN THE BIG TEN!!!!!!!!!!'

No that's not true. I think Texas could make more than what the Big 10 does per school.

I just have a hard time believing A) that Texas is willing to give the Pac 10 free access to Texas recruits and their tv market and B) that this network is going to reach every single one of the potential customers AND get Fox to pony up another 100 million for something they never put on tv before (even when they had BCS bowl games)

[snowcraig2.0]

But the Big Ten network will reach every single viewer in Missouri? Or New Jersey?

[UNIGuy4Cy]

No that's not true. I think Texas could make more than what the Big 10 does per school.

I just have a hard time believing A) that Texas is willing to give the Pac 10 free access to Texas recruits and their tv market and B) that this network is going to reach every single one of the potential customers AND get Fox to pony up another 100 million for something they never put on tv before (even when they had BCS bowl games)

Good points, but if there is no Big 12, and Texas will not go to the SEC, where are the revenues for Texas going to come from? Hello SWAC.

[Clark]

But the Big Ten network will reach every single viewer in Missouri? Or New Jersey?

Did I say that?

[Clark]

Good points, but if there is no Big 12, and Texas will not go to the SEC, where are the revenues for Texas going to come from? Hello SWAC.

ND doesn't have a conference and they don't have near the advantages that Texas would have.

Texas would probably make more money if they were an independent (in football anyway, I think there could be an issue with non-revenue sports)

Regardless, I don't see the Big 12 going away.

This deal with the Pac 10 seems to be a good one for every single school but one.(even though the numbers in this thread are being pretty generous IMO) The problem is that the one school that this deal doesn't benefit holds all the cards.

Even using the proposed 13-14 million, you're telling me that Texas is going to open up their state to the Pac 10 for 1-2 million dollars?

[UNIGuy4Cy]

Did I say that?

I see your points, the bigger point of the matter is the Big 12 and Texas know that something has to get done NOW. No more wait and see, Texas is in line to be the big loser here if the Big 12 dissolves.

[UNIGuy4Cy]

ND doesn't have a conference and they don't have near the advantages that Texas would have.

Texas would probably make more money if they were an independent (in football anyway, I think there could be an issue with non-revenue sports)

Regardless, I don't see the Big 12 going away.

This deal with the Pac 10 seems to be a good one for every single school but one.(even though the numbers in this thread are being pretty generous IMO) The problem is that the one school that this deal doesn't benefit holds all the cards.

Even using the proposed 13-14 million, you're telling me that Texas is going to open up their state to the Pac 10 for 1-2 million dollars?

I disagree, independence is a thing of the past... guarenteed tv contracts for conferences will overtake anything available to an independent. ND is losing money today not being in the Big 10, these losses will only increase.

[Clark]

I see your points, the bigger point of the matter is the Big 12 and Texas know that something has to get done NOW. No more wait and see, Texas is in line to be the big loser here if the Big 12 dissolves.

Texas is not going to be a loser regardless. The Big 10, Pac 10, and the SEC would take Texas in a second.

And like I said, the Big 12 isn't going anywhere.

[cyatheart]

Texas is not going to be a loser regardless. The Big 10, Pac 10, and the SEC would take Texas in a second.

And like I said, the Big 12 isn't going anywhere.

I think it is going to be fine, but we need some sort of new TV contract.

What about this? If the Big 12/Pac 10 could get something that worked and generated some reveneue...

1.) Maybe Mo, Neb decide to stay because the revenue disparity would be closed with the Big 10.
2.) Big 12 let's CO go to the Pac 10 along with Utah....Big 12 replaces CO with BYU...both teams have 12 teams, everyone is happy. BYU and Utah can play every year, done.

[benjay]

I see your points, the bigger point of the matter is the Big 12 and Texas know that something has to get done NOW. No more wait and see, Texas is in line to be the big loser here if the Big 12 dissolves.

There is no conceivable scenario in which Texas ends up "losing".

[snowcraig2.0]

What could NBC / Comcast do for this? Games on NBC and VS, plus a dedicated network?

[Frak]

This is assuming a lot of things. First you have to assume that you get all of the potential 440 million. Second, you have to assume Fox is going to even want to pay 100 million to put college football on. Have they ever had college football before? (not including ESPN-plus)

Also, as a previous poster said there has to be a reason why the Pac 10 doesn't have a good tv deal already. My guess is that California isn't much of a college market.

And most importantly, this deal would have to allow Texas to generate more money than they could get by just starting their own network.

That's the big question. Thing is, you don't need everyone there to be a college fan, just enough people threatening to change providers. Iowa fans are what, 65% of the sports fans in this state? Maybe 70%. But that's just sports fans. Overall, people who love UI and were willing to go to bat for the BTN were probably 10% of the overall population of the state. And basically, that 10% forced Mediacom to put the channel on basic cable and raise everyone's bill. I see NO reason why USC and UCLA fans couldn't do the same in LA. Same with Stanford/Cal fans in Oakland/SF. I think that the places they could have trouble with are San Diego and Sacramento. But you KNOW that OR, WA, OK, TX, NE, KS are college sports-crazy. If the Utah schools were invited, that state would be an easy sell too.

As for Texas starting their own network, I guess I don't understand how that would work. Right now, we can't even put games on Mediacom that aren't picked up by the current TV package. We can't even broadcast games on the internet live. How is UT going to get away with televising their own games? And then does the opponent get some of the money? Besides, most of their games are picked up on either ABC/ESPN or FSN anyway, so what kind of actual programming would they have? I wonder whether that entire state would sign up for a cable network that basically only shows Olympic sports and reruns of FB games.

[CarolinaCy]

ND doesn't have a conference and they don't have near the advantages that Texas would have.

Texas would probably make more money if they were an independent (in football anyway, I think there could be an issue with non-revenue sports)

Regardless, I don't see the Big 12 going away.

This deal with the Pac 10 seems to be a good one for every single school but one.(even though the numbers in this thread are being pretty generous IMO) The problem is that the one school that this deal doesn't benefit holds all the cards.

Even using the proposed 13-14 million, you're telling me that Texas is going to open up their state to the Pac 10 for 1-2 million dollars?

Does it matter what Texas thinks? Does it have to be unanimous to be approved? I don't think anyone knows, but I'm guess that if it's 21-1 in favor of this TV deal, and Fox is on board, then the rest of the schools will tell Texas to go fly a kite.